Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 19th May, 1961, for the Whitsun Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HOLY TRINITY BROMPTON BILL

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

RIVER RAVENSBOURNE, &C. (IMPROVEMENT AND FLOOD PREVENTION) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

State House, Holborn

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Works what will be the cost to his Department of the lease of State House, Holborn; and what efforts were made, before this lease was taken, to find accommodation farther from the centre of London.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): It is not my policy to publish details of commercial transactions such as leases. My Department has recently taken the leases of several office buildings outside the central London area, but the principal Departments which are to occupy State House, Holborn, could not have been accommodated further from the centre without serious loss of efficiency.

Mr. Stewart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the general concern about congestion in London, that further consideration ought to have been given to a Ministry not adding to it? In these circumstances, are we not entitled to know how much the Ministry is going to pay?

Lord John Hope: No, Sir. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's first point has anything to do with knowing about the price. The answer to his main contention is that one must take into account the efficiency factor, and we were satisfied in this case that the D.S.I.R., which is one of the main occupants, would lose efficiency if it were not in this part of central London.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Government have built around London a number of new towns as part of the Government's programme for dispersing population and that these new towns are very anxious to have Government office accommodation? Does it not make nonsense of the Government's policy in planning the dispersal of population not


to encourage Government Departments to go to the new towns instead of congesting the centre of London?

Lord John Hope: Where Government Departments are to go out, which in many cases is thoroughly desirable, it means that there would be no loss in the efficient working of the Departments, but clearly it would be against the public interest if one dispersed when concentration led to greater efficiency.

Mr. Stewart: The Minister says that it is not his policy to give prices of this kind, but if the Public Accounts Committee were to ask him he would have to provide the information, would he not?

Lord John Hope: All I know is that if I am asked by the hon. Gentleman I must say what the policy is. I am sure that it would be highly undesirable and would prejudice the public interest if the details of commercial transactions such as this were divulged. It would put both parties to such a transaction at a hopeless disadvantage. We could not do as well for the public in the market as we can under present conditions.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Works what steps he proposes to take, in consultation with the other Departments concerned, to stagger working hours of officials at State House so that the movement of those employed there will not increase unduly the rush-hour congestion at Holborn station.

Lord John Hope: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research will be the major occupant of State House. I understand it will be discussing with other occupying Departments arrangements for securing a reasonable staggering of the times of arrival and departure of all staff to be accommodated in this building. I understand also that the hours of attendance of staff in the headquarters of the Department are already staggered.

Mr. Woodburn: What reason has the D.S.I.R. for being in the centre of London? Of all the administrative bodies, surely this is the one which could be most easily dispersed and which it is desirable to disperse?

Lord John Hope: I tried to answer that point on the supplementary questions

which were put to me on the last Question. This Question concerns the staggering of hours.

Grace and Favour Residences

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Works how many grace and favour residences come within his control; and how much his Department has spent on them in each of the last ten years.

Lord John Hope: I am responsible for repair and maintenance of the structure and services, and for modernisation on change of occupation, at 140 grace and favour residences. Over the last ten years, the total expenditure on them by my Department has averaged about £24,000 a year.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many occupants of such residences pay rents, and can he provide information in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving such rents as are currently being paid?

Lord John Hope: That is a different Question, but, in fact, I think I can help the hon. Gentleman by telling him that occupants of these residences are responsible for costs of decoration during occupation and for running their services—hot water, heating, gas and so on—and also for a contribution in lieu of rates.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it be of any use hon. Members applying for one of these grace and favour residences?

Lord John Hope: The right hon. Gentleman could always try and see what happens.

Mr. Speaker: Not on this Question.

Lord John Hope: I must emphasise that this is not part of my responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Caravan Sites

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of housing needs, he will give an assurance that he will not sanction the use of planning powers by the Central Electricity Generating Board to prevent the erection of caravan sites in the vicinity of their generating stations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): The Central Electricity Generating Board has no powers to control development near its generating stations. This is a matter for the local planning authorities. My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power are, however, arranging that they should both be consulted by the local planning authorities before permission for certain kinds of development near nuclear power stations is given.

Mr. Harrison: There seems to be a farcical situation growing up here. Will my hon. Friend look into it? The board is buying out potential caravan sites near nuclear power stations. Is it not high time that there was a reappraisal of planning, building and normal development near these sorts of structure?

Sir K. Joseph: I must repeat that the Electricity Generating Board has no power of control in the planning sense. Control rests with the planning authorities. My right hon. Friend proposes to give some guidance to planning authorities on the matter in the near future.

Peterlee

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether there exists any arrangement for regular meetings of the Easington Rural District Council and the Peterlee Parish Council with the Peterlee Corporation on matters concerning the new town in which the local authorities have an interest; and if he is aware that the Corporation has refused to meet the Peterlee Parish Council.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend understands that meetings with the development corporation or their officers are arranged quite frequently to discuss questions connected with the functions of either council. He understands, however, that the corporation considers it inappropriate to discuss rent policy with the parish council, and on this he is disposed to agree with the Corporation.

Mr. Shinwell: Apart from consultations on rent policy, which, after all, concern the parish council as an elected

body, is the hon. Gentleman aware that my information is that the parish council has frequently approached the corporation for consultations on important matters but the corporation has refused to see it? Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend that he might advise the corporation, in the interests of good relations in the area, that it might see the parish council when it asks?

Sir K. Joseph: If that is so, my right hon. Friend will consider the matter. However, my information is that there have been five meetings of officers with the parish council in the past year and a number of more infrequent informal meetings before that. I will look into the matter.

Land, Crawley

Mr. Gough: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the price paid to Mr. James Lee in 1957 by the Crawley Development Corporation in respect of 174 acres of property known as Little Buckswood Farm; what has been the cost of developing this land since that date; what was the price obtained for it when it was recently sold for building purposes by the development corporation; if he will make a statement about the size of the profit made.

Sir K. Joseph: When Mr. Lee served a notice on the corporation requiring it to buy all his land it paid him £13,500 for the freehold of 179 acres plus £711 for loss of crops, tenant right and other disturbance. The combined cost to the corporation of buying and developing this particular area is estimated at about £4,500 per acre. My right hon. Friend does not think it right to disclose the price paid by a private builder for the 31 acres recently sold by the corporation because he thinks the builder is entitled to regard this as confidential. I can, however, say that the element of profit to the corporation was very modest.

Mr. Gough: Why does my hon. Friend seek to conceal this figure from the House? Surely it is right for us to know whether the profit is modest or not. Further, does he appreciate that it is commonly considered in Crawley that those who helped the Crawley Development Corporation and made no trouble


received far less compensation than those who dug in their heels and eventually had to be winkled out? Will my hon. Friend consider the matter again and ensure that justice is done?

Sir K. Joseph: I understand the strong feelings about this in any case of purchase by a new town corporation, but this was a commercial transaction, and the development corporation is obliged to get the best market price. I was able to assure my hon. Friend that in this case the element of profit was very modest. With regard to my hon. Friend's allegation that a different price was paid to those people who co-operated from that which was paid to those who did not co-operate so freely with the Crawley Development Corporation, I assure him that the corporation must take the advice of the district valuer, and his advice is bound to be of the same order in each case, whatever the character of the transaction.

Mr. Paget: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us why only a small profit was made? The development corporation added enormously to the value of this land by its efforts and not by the farmers' efforts. Why is it inhibited from taking the value which it has created?

Sir K. Joseph: The development corporation is not inhibited. In this case, evidently, it happened that the cost of making the land available was not very much below the market value of the land when sold.

Mr. M. Stewart: Since the Government's lack of policy has turned buying and selling land into a lottery, is it not gratifying that occasionally a public corporation wins some of the prizes?

Open Space, Newstead

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he took, before granting planning permission for the development of an open space on the Regina Crescent estate, Newstead, to ascertain the views of the owners of other land on the estate.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend was informed by the local authority that adjoining owners were likely to object to development of the land, and he took this into account before reaching his decision.

Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the procedure followed in this case under Section 19 of the Act there was no opportunity for the house owners on adjoining land, who had been led to believe that this open space would be permanently retained as such, to cross-examine witnesses or to present their objections to the Ministry inspector? As the Minister must have made his decision without being in possession of all the facts, will he reconsider the matter?

Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is, "No, Sir". The question before my right hon. Friend was whether the land would be capable of reasonably beneficial use to the owner. As a result of a hearing of the two parties, he was satisfied that it was not. Therefore, he had only to decide whether, bearing in mind the known attitude of the neighbours—and their attitude was known—he should allow some beneficial use or force the local authority, which did not want to buy the land, to purchase it.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Urban Renewal Schemes

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he proposes to take to assist local authorities in the capital expenditure involved in comprehensive urban renewal.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend is not clear that local authorities should require any assistance for this purpose over and above that given.

Mrs. Butler: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many schemes will not be as comprehensive nor satisfactory from the traffic and social planning points of view as they should be unless local authorities have financial help with the initial acquisition and development of these schemes? Has the Minister yet examined the possibility of making loans available with the payment of interest suspended for the initial period?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady should remember that the taxpayer is already providing considerable help for comprehensive development through the general


grant and through assistance to housing, particularly where the sites are expensive, and by way of a contribution to classified roads. In addition, the local authorities can expect to get a good price from letting the bulk of the development put up in comprehensive redevelopment. However, my right hon. Friend is considering the whole of this complex matter and is looking at all the ideas. I did not mention the question of deferring interest because I did not think that, although it might be helpful in many cases, it was the sort of assistance which the hon. Lady had in mind.

Mr. Deedes: Is my hon. Friend aware that, finance apart, there is overwhelming evidence of the need for more guidance in this matter by a number of local authorities? Are any steps being taken to issue such guidance on consultation with the principal authorities concerned for central redevelopment?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. My right right hon. Friend is studying this subject in conjunction with his right hon. Friends most directly concerned in order to provide guidance to local authorities who are constantly consulting his Department and are therefore receiving guidance continuously. But he has in mind more formal methods of guidance in due course when these consultations are complete.

Mr. MacColl: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, even if he does not appreciate that local authorities need assistance, the Civic Trust does appreciate it? Is he further aware that one of the problems is that, if a local authority is to plan redevelopment prudently, it must lock up its resources for a long time and therefor it needs assistance?

Sir K. Joseph: The ideas of the Civic Trust in this field are particularly being studied by my right hon. Friend.

Greater London (Royal Commission's Report)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities have now made representations to him with regard to the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London; and what have been his replies.

Sir K. Joseph: One hundred and twenty-three local authorities have made representations. They have been told that their views will be taken into account in the Government's consideration of the Royal Commission's Report.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the far-reaching and controversial nature of the Commission's Report, should not there be an opportunity of a debate on the Floor of the House to ascertain the views of hon. Members before the Minister comes to a decision on the Report?

Sir K. Joseph: I will refer that point to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

National Coal Board (Tenants)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the special problem confronting certain local authorities in areas where the National Coal Board owns housing estates and has recently decided to issue notices to quit to tenants who have left the mining industry; and if he will convene a conference composed of representatives of his Department, the National Coal Board, and local authorities concerned, for the purpose of working out a concerted policy to deal with the problem.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to the position in the Newcastle-under-Lyme area about which he has recently written to my right hon. Friend. No representations have been received from the local authorities concerned, but my right hon. Friend is looking into the matter further and will be writing to the hon. Member very shortly.

Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that he will be certainly receiving representations from local authorities which have not written yet because they do not know the size of the problem? However, it is clear that the problem is exceptional and that it might have the effect of considerably putting back the housing lists in such localities. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore consider the matter urgently and sympathetically?

Sir K. Joseph: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern on the figures that he may have, but my information is that only one case is urgent and that the council concerned is reviewing that at its next meeting.

Mr. MacColl: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is not confined to the Newcastle-under-Lyme area? It is found in any area where there are tied houses. Is he also aware that, where local authorities have stopped building for general needs as a result of the Government's policy, it is particularly difficult for them to find accommodation for displaced people?

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that there is very close co-operation between the local authorities concerned and the National Coal Board. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is looking into the whole matter.

Kirkby

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to be able to give a decision on the application by the Kirkby Urban District Council for planning permission to develop land for housing purposes, in view of the lapse of 11 months since the public inquiry was held and the urgent need to rehouse overcrowded families in the Kirkby area.

Sir K. Joseph: Shortly. My right hon. Friend found it necessary after the inquiry to seek information from Liverpool Corporation. He is now awaiting the comments of the parties on the corporation's reply.

Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Minister originally approved the boundaries for this urban district it was envisaged that this land would be used for overspill housing? Is he aware that people who have been moved from Liverpool into this Liverpool overspill area are very apprehensive that there may be a plan in the Minister's mind to require them to move once again to the new town of Skelmers-dale in a few years' time? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the Minister gives a reasonable decision on this matter so that rehousing can begin as quickly as possible?

Sir K. Joseph: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Civil Servants (Union Representation)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if recognition will be given to the Society of Administrative and Executive Civil Servants in Malta.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): The Society has been recognised as a trade union since it first registered as such in 1954.

Mr. Brockway: Has not there been some difficulty recently, because this union claims the right to withhold labour? What has been the result of the negotiations about that point?

Mr. Macleod: There are current negotiations, and I think that both the matters to which this union attaches importance—that of separate negotiation and, if necessary, of ultimate arbitration—have been conceded to it on this issue.

Mr. Brockway: Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOZO

Elections

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements he is making for local elections in the Island of Gozo; what consultations he has had with Maltese political parties about these elections; and if he is satisfied that political parties will be free to participate in these elections without restrictions from official or other bodies.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The elections will be conducted on 4th June in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. XI of 1961, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The Ordinance establishes the Gozo Civil Council which will replace a voluntary Committee in existence since 1958. Local opinion in Gozo has been consulted but not Maltese political parties. No one is debarred from participating in the elections because of his political activities, but candidates will stand as individuals and not as party representatives.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that the Church in Gozo is


now engaged in a campaign of intimidation, using also the powers of interdiction, against one of the political parties? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is causing a great deal of concern in the island and, in these circumstances, will he not arrange for the elections to be postponed?

Mr. Macleod: In reply to the last part of the question, certainly not. Clearly, there is a need for local government in Gozo, because at the moment any matter, however parochial, has to be decided by the central Government. Concerning the other matters which the hon. Member has raised, I understand that Mr. Mintoff has written a letter of complaint to me. I have not yet had an opportunity of studying it, but I will do so and reply to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Seditious Offences

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans have been arrested for political offences in the Northern Province of Northern Rhodesia in the last three months; with what specific offences they have been charged; what proportion has been found guilty; and what penalties have been imposed.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The law does not define a "political offence", but if the hon. Member has in mind seditious practices under the penal code, three Africans have been arrested for committing such offences in the Northern Province during the last three months. AH were convicted and sentenced, one to nine months' and two to twelve months' imprisonment. No one is prosecuted in connection with political activity unless a breach of the law is involved.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister quite sure that that answer is accurate? Has he examined, for example, the allegations I sent him from a trading organisation in Northern Rhodesia about Africans being arrested, charged and convicted, it was alleged, merely for shouting such things as "Freedom" and "Independence" at political demonstrations? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that this is completely untrue? Have

the allegations been thoroughly examined?

Mr. Macleod: Naturally, I rely on information that is given to me, but in this case my information comes from the Governor and, as far as I am concerned, that is sufficient guarantee of its accuracy. He has inquired particularly into the matters raised by a number of hon. Members in this House in relation to the U.N.I.P. party and the Northern Province, and he is satisfied that prosecutions are brought not for the reasons alleged but only if there is some additional reason such as, for example, a breach of the peace.

Intimidation

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Africans have complained in Lusaka that they are afraid to go home to, and afraid to go go out at night in, places like the Chibolya township because of the danger of assault by political terrorists armed with knobkerries and axes; what measures are being taken in Northern Rhodesia to defend British-protected persons from such intimidation; and what reports have been received as to the identity of its organisers.

Mr. Iain Macleod: There has recently been some fear of violence in African townships because of disputes between political factions. Although the efforts of the police to prevent intimidation and identify those responsible have been hampered by the absence of any specific complaints, the trouble has now died down.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Situation

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of continuing unrest, he will make a further statement on the political and security situation in Kenya.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): The new Legislative Council has been sitting for less than a month: during that period the new Government has shown its ability to govern and to maintain its


majority. In my overall assessment the disturbing features in the security situation are three: the problem of increasing crime, the theft of firearms and the increase of illegal oathings in two areas. Since a statement made by the Kenya Minister of Internal Securtiy and Defence was placed in the Library on 18th May, an oathing ceremony attended by some 500 Meru has been discovered. Security operations are now taking place in this area. My right hon. Friend has assured the Governor of his full support in any measures which he may consider necessary to maintain security in Kenya, and in that maintenance the Governor has of course at his disposal a large and efficient police force, far closer administration than ever before, experience of the previous outbreak and the determination of the mass of the people of all communities to avoid violence and a repetition of Kenya's tragic years.

Mr. Callaghan: Whilst I think the whole House will welcome the meetings and the statements that have been made by political leaders in Kenya denouncing any return to the past, may I ask the Under-Secretary why he found it necessary to contradict the statement of the Minister of Internal Security about the state of public security in the territory?

Mr. Fraser: That is not so. I consulted the Minister before I made my statement and I will place in the Library a copy of the broadcast I made in Kenya.

Mr. Callaghan: Has not the Under-Secretary read the accounts of the results of his visit and the impression which he left upon the minds of people in the territory? Does he not think that when paying a visit in an attempt to allay unrest, if he should leave the impression in their minds that he and the Minister of Internal Security are not as one on this matter, so far from his visit being successful it would be far better if he had not gone?

Mr. Fraser: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said in such a courteous way. I think, however, that it has been of some value that a Minister from this country should visit Kenya and should look at the security situation at first hand and get a proper appreciation of the problems which lie ahead.

Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the root cause of the unrest in Kenya lies in the question of land? Will he consider calling a conference between Europeans, Africans and Her Majesty's Government to consider the whole question of land title, both European and African?

Mr. Fraser: Certainly, the problem of land is basic to Kenya's economic and, indeed, political problems. I will consider what my hon. Friend has suggested.

Constitutional Conferences

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the futher constitutional conferences to be called on Kenya as announced recently by the Under-Secretary of State in Nairobi.

Mr. Iain Macleod: A new Constitution has recently come into force in Kenya and I have no statement to make regarding future constitutional conferences.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that some of us have a great deal of sympathy with the Under-Secretary that some of his remarks should be quoted out of context by certain newspapers in Kenya and elsewhere, but that we are glad that since his return to the United Kingdom the Under-Secretary has clarified what he said in Nairobi? In particular, is the Colonial Secretary aware that we are pleased that there is no question of Kenya proceeding to complete independence without new elections being held on a basis which will allow fairer representation to the major tribes?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member knows very well that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did not say what he has put into his mouth in the last part of his supplementary question. What my hon. Friend did say, which is a statement of fact, is that Kenya is not yet at the stage of responsible government, let alone of full internal self-government or of independence.

Mr. Callaghan: Did the Under-Secretary say that independence is several years ahead? If so, is he or the Minister standing by that or do we regard that statement as being withdrawn?

Mr. Macleod: I have always spoken in terms of stages. My hon. Friend said that these stages would take several conferences, which is obviously true, and several years. I have no intention of trying to define that phrase further. It is unquestionably true that it is quite wrong for politicians in Kenya to say that independence, for example, could come to Kenya in 1961 when nobody knows better than those same politicians that that is quite untrue.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the Colonial Secretary aware that there has been an expectation in Kenya, some people anticipating it gleefully and others with regret, that if independence did not come in 1961, it would come probably next year? In view of the unrest which has been caused by the Under-Secretary's words, will the Colonial Secretary now define a little more precisely what is in his mind about the achievement of independence? Does he expect it to come, as hitherto was expected until the Under-Secretary spoke, within, say, the next eighteen months or two years?

Mr. Macleod: No. No member of the Government has ever attempted to define the stages that are necessary for Kenya to advance politically and constitutionally in terms of years. I have no criticism whatever to make of the words used by my hon. Friend. He said that these stages are in front of Kenya, and so they are, and he used the expression "several years". I do not think that it is at all profitable to attempt to define that further.

Mr. P. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the two important things in this matter are, first, to avoid a timetable, and secondly, that the existing Constitution should be made to work satisfactorily for all races in Kenya?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. I entirely agree with that, and not only in this case, but in all cases. In dealing with constitutional advances in the territory, I have always resolutely refused to agree to timetables.

Mr. Callaghan: Whilst we have all had experience of uttering words that may be regretted afterwards, have we not now reached the position that the

Under-Secretary, having made a statement, has subsequently modified it? Would it not be simpler if he were now to withdraw it altogether so that we could return to the position that existed before he made it, so that there was no timetable announced and we were not left in the position that the Minister has to defend an obviously indefensible statement? Why not withdraw it?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that that is the position. Had I thought that there was something which should be withdrawn, I am sure that my hon. Friend would have withdrawn the words in this House. I have made it clear, as my hon. Friend also has done, that there has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's policies. I have never put forward timetables for Kenya or for any other Colony. I am certain that the right thing to do, as my hon. Friend said, is to study the position and to take constitutional advance at the pace that is appropriate to the economic circumstances of the country and to the needs of all the races in it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Foreign Fishing Vessels, Moray Firth

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number and nationalities of foreign fishing vessels which have fished in the Moray Firth during each of the last ten years, the amounts of their respective catches in crans landed in British ports; and the value of each catch.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number and nationality of foreign trawlers observed fishing in the Moray Firth in each of the last ten years. Such trawlers are not allowed to land fish in the United Kingdom for a period of two months after being so observed, and I have no information about their catches.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Secretary of State say why the Government continue to neglect the British fishing industry in favour of invasions such as those set out


in my Question and in the very long table which will be circulated, especially in view of the restrictions on territorial waters imposed by foreign Governments on British fishing vessels?

Mr. Maclay: As the hon. and learned Member knows, the Government pay

STATEMENT SHOWING NUMBER OF FOREIGN TRAWLERS OBSERVED IN MORAY FIFTH, 1950–61 (Year ending 19th October)


Nationality
1950–51
1951–52
1952–53
1953–54
1954–55


Trawlers
Occasions
Trawlers
Occasions
Trawlers
Occasions
Trawlers
Occasions
Trawlers
Occasions


Total
…
…
36
159
30
200
32
165
32
172
29
148


Dutch
…
…
2
5
—
—
—
—
5
5
3
5


Belgian
…
…
34
154
30
200
30
161
26
163
23
140


French
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
3
—
—
1
1


Swedish
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
1
1
4
2
2

Migration of Population

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what inquiries he is making into the effects upon future economic and social developments in Scotland of the average net loss of population by migration of 27,000 per annum.

Mr. Maclay: In 1960 the inward flow to Scotland was approximately 40,000 and the outward 63,000. Migration is one of the factors being considered by the Committee of Inquiry into the Scottish economy, set up by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

Mr. Willis: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever the figure might be, it is very substantial and is causing great concern, particularly in those areas which are suffering a continuous process of depopulation? Does he not think that this raises a number of serious questions in

very close attention to the interests of the British fishing industry at all times.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

Following is the Table:

these areas that he should do something to answer?

Mr. Maclay: I quite agree that the figures give us cause for considerable concern, although it is interesting to note that 40,000 people came into the country last year. The inquiry to which I have referred is, however, going on and Government Departments, including my own, are giving every assistance with that inquiry.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this constant loss of population by migration must be a serious matter for Scotland, that this is evidence that the right hon. Gentleman's or the Government's economic policies over the years have failed and that it is no good suggesting that this is a matter which might be looked at by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), which is not an official body? Is it not


time that Her Majesty's Ministers were thinking of new economic policies that would arrest this trend?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member must realise that Her Majesty's Government's economic policies are producing results. At the moment, there are 31,000 jobs in the pipeline likely to mature over the next few years.

Shipping Firms (Rating and Valuation)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from ship building firms in Scotland about recent revaluation assessments affecting the industry; and what reply he has given.

Mr. Maclay: In addition to five representations from individual firms and one from the Greenock Chamber of Commerce, I have received a memorandum from the Clyde Shipbuilders' Association about the effect of the revaluation on the shipbuilding industry. My noble Friend the Minister of State is meeting a deputation from the Association on my behalf on 9th June.

Mr. Mabon: With all respect to Lord Craigton, will the right hon. Gentleman accept the view that the Clyde shipbuilders would be much happier if they could meet him, since this matter may either involve a Cabinet decision for amelioration of the rating position or result in direct aid to the industry? Will the Secretary of State consider meeting a deputation after Lord Craigton has had his meeting?

Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Member knows, I see the Clyde shipbuilders individually from time to time. I will, of course, consider meeting them later if it seems desirable. Time is important, however, and I consider it wise to carry on with the meeting which has been arranged with Lord Craigton.

Tourist Trade

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from district councils for an increase of their powers to enable them to promote the tourist trade; and, in particular, if he will bring advertising within their competence.

Mr. Maclay: I know of the interest of district councils in tourism, and I have taken note of their desire to be given the powers to advertise the amenities of their areas and to make contributions towards overseas publicity that town councils have under the Health Resorts and Watering Places Act, 1936, and the Local Authorities (Publicity) Act, 1931.

Mr. Grimond: As the right hon. Gentleman says that he has taken note of this, can he give an indication when he will take some action?

Mr. Maclay: One of the problems, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, about taking action in matters like this is that legislation is involved and no one can say exactly how long even the most innocent Bill will take to get through the Scottish Committee.

University Places

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with the University Grants Committee regarding the allocation of funds for the expansion of the number of university places in Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: I maintain close contact both with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the University Grants Committee on matters relating to universities in Scotland. I should make it clear that the Chancellor's statement of 18th May applied to the needs of the next decade and that longer term needs will be considered in the light of the Report of the Robbins Committee. The position in this respect was explained by the Chairman of the U.G.C. to the representatives of the six Scottish centres interested in a new foundation when he met them last December and the position has not changed since then.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his consultations and influence do not seem to be very successful? Is he aware that while there are seven universities to be established in England, Scotland has not had a new university since the sixteenth century, and that at present the Government's programme for university places in Scotland is totally inadequate to the number of students expected in the new few years?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman is just not correct in the latter part of his


statement. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in the House, and as I have explained now, the building programmes he has authorised for universities will enable the Scottish universities and the Royal College of Science and Technology to accommodate the increasing number of students coming forward this decade.

Mr. Manuel: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the solution he is proposing is one which will be accepted by the people of Scotland? How much does the right hon. Gentleman think his education would have been retarded at Glasgow University, or wherever it was he was educated, if when he was being educated there were repair works and renovations going on? His proposals are quite intolerable to the people of Scotland, who want another university.

Mr. Maclay: Perhaps the hon. Member would study what has been said in answers today and in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement earlier. I will give him fuller information, if he would care to talk to me about it, in the light of the remarks of the Chairman of the U.G.C., who really does know something about universities.

Teachers (Salaries)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consideration he has given to the question of salary increases for Scottish teachers.

Mr. Maclay: I am considering my proposals in the light of the views expressed by the National Joint Council to deal with Salaries of Teachers in Scotlnad. I hope to write to the Council again in the near future.

Mr. Thomson: Since the views of the National Joint Council were an outright rejection, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his proposals and put forward a more generous offer, and will he consider an improvement he might bring about in the atmosphere if he were to introduce legislation allowing the salary offered to be paid retrospectively?

Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Gentleman knows and as I said in my original reply, I am considering my proposals at the

moment. I do not want to add to that statement. The Question of retrospection raises another and different issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENCE

Space Research

Mr. Mason: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if the programme of space research, specifically dealing with scientific experiments using sounding rockets, is to be conducted by the United Kingdom alone; and at what estimated cost.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): The experiments in the present sounding rocket programme are devised by United Kingdom scientists and carried in Skylark rockets fired at Woomera under joint Anglo-Australian arrangements. The main element in the cost is that of providing the rockets, which is estimated as of the order of £225,000 in the current year. The possibility of enlarging this porgramme in co-operation with the Commonwealth and Europe is under consideration, and a co-operative sounding rocket programme is one of the first questions which are being explored by the Preparatory Commission set up to plan a possible European organisation for space research.

Mr. Mason: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will state the total cost in the first year of the United Kingdom's overseas plans to develop a varied programme for space research.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The cost cannot be assessed pending the outcome of the international discussions now in progress on the co-operative development of a satellite launcher, and on the scale of activities to be carried on by the proposed European Space Research Organisation.

Water Pollution (Scotland)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what steps the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has taken to Increase research on water pollution in Scotland.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Water Pollution Research Laboratory, the


headquarters of which is at Stevenage, opened a branch at East Kilbride in January this year. This will enable the Laboratory to keep in closer touch with Scottish local authorities, River Purification Boards and industry, and will, in particular, help Scottish manufacturers with problems of effluent treatment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement about possible British participation in the European Common Market.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have nothing to add to what I told the House in reply to Questions on 16th of May and to what my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said in the foreign affairs debate on 17th and 18th of May.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is growing support in the country for the skilful and adroit way in which he is carefully edging his party to the acceptance of Britain joining the Common Market, and will he assure the House that he will not be discouraged either by the misleading propaganda of Lord Beaverbook or by the obscurantism of those people in his own party who have not yet discovered which century they are living in?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was fortunate enough to be called in the debate—I forget—but at any rate we had two days of very full debate on this, and I would have thought that the attitude, the atmosphere, in the House as a whole, apart from party divisions, was that there was no question of edging this party or that party to this or that decision but of trying after grave consideration to reach a decision on one of the most important questions which this country has had to settle.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many of us on this side of the House—I, at any rate, can speak for myself—who are not willing to enter into a Common Market or accept the principle of an economic much less a political integration in Europe without a great deal of further consideration?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman has said has shown the wisdom of the Government's approach.

Mr. Blyton: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us ordinary Members believe that our economy should be determined by the elected Government and not by a supranational authority in Europe in which the British Government could not object? Is he further aware that the Treaty of Rome would commit us to a federal parliament for Europe which would mean a serious effect on our Commonwealth relations? Is he further aware that the actions of the British Government should be subject to the British electorate and not to an ad hoc authority in Europe?

The Prime Minister: All the points the hon. Member has made are relevant, and, of course, they have been considerably discussed at considerable length in the course of the two days' debate and, no doubt, will be discussed again. I do not think they are very easy to deal with in question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES DOCUMENTS (LOSS)

Mr. Marsh: asked the Prime Minister what were the circumstances which made it impossible for him to ascertain whether secret documents entrusted by the United States of America to the Admiralty were lost, stolen or mislaid.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will not expect me to give details of the investigation to which I referred in my answer of 11th May. But modern techniques of espionage are such that it would not be necessary to purloin these documents in order to make improper use of them. I do not seek to minimise the seriousness of what has happened, but I believe that it has been due to carelessness not treachery.

Mr. Marsh: Is it not a rather frightening situation that documents of this type, loaned to the Admiralty by a foreign Government, vanish and after a period of a month the Prime Minister cannot even tell us whether they have been lost, stolen or mislaid? Is it not becoming frighteningly obvious that there is something wrong in his Department? Unless


he can remedy it in the near future, would it not be in the national interest that he should consider his resignation?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman very much underestimates the difficulties as well as the dangers of all these security questions. This particular document was in a file which is missing, which contained one secret document—the whole file is missing. There are other copies of this in other parts of the contractor's works—[An HON. MEMBER: "How many?"]—and none of these is missing. As I ventured to say, it is a strange paradox of modern espionage in which I think there is much more danger of a document being copied—so easy is it to do—for improper reasons than of its being actually removed.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are we to understand from the reply that the Prime Minister now considers that this document was not merely mislaid but was positively stolen, possibly for purposes of copying? Would he not agree that this is really a very serious matter, when documents lent to us by a foreign Government disappear in this way, and would he consider referring this particular matter to the Romer Committee, which is already investigating the whole question of security in the Admiralty Under-Water Weapons Establishment?

The Prime Minister: I think, perhaps, I was misunderstood. I have said that paradoxically the fact that the whole file of documents was not available—lost or mislaid—made it seem to me and others that it was rather less likely that it was used for improper purposes. As everybody knows, under modern methods, if there had been a traitor in these works—which you must assume if you say it was stolen for improper purposes—the much easier thing would have been to copy it, not take the whole file. There may have been a traitor in these works. If there is, not only the Romer Committee but the new Committee of inquiry will have to consider what new measures we shall have to take to defend ourselves, throughout not only the Government services but industrial works of this country.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister not agree that, despite the difficulties to which he has referred, nevertheless this is a very serious matter?

Does it not point to the need for additional measures to be taken, and is not the Romer Committee the right Committee to consider this?

The Prime Minister: The Romer Committee has almost completed its work and either that Committee or the general Committee on security will be given the full facts of the case, and this will lead us in due course to consider what new methods of security both in the public service and in the contractor service may be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN TROOPS, WALES

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the resolution, a copy of which has been sent him, unanimously passed at a conference of delegates of the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers and the South Wales Federation of Trades Councils at Porthcawl on 13th May, protesting against the proposal to establish German troops in Wales; and what reply he has sent.

The Prime Minister: I have written to the hon. Member about this resolution.

Mr. Davies: That is perfectly correct, but may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that the people of Wales are not in the least impressed by the Government's feeble efforts to mask this evil intention by attributing to N.A.T.O. virtues which we in Wales know to be wholly non-existent?

The Prime Minister: This is a question on which, of course, I understand the difficulties that some people feel about any arrangements for the training of German troops in this country. However, the German Federal Republic is one of our allies in N.A.T.O., and other countries such as France and Holland which actually suffered occupation by German troops are making similar arrangements. We have not yet reached a definite decision. This is not a question of a base or anything of that kind. It is a question of facilities for training. We have to take the whole position that we are now in as it is today and think what is best for the N.A.T.O alliance as a whole.

Mr. Gaitskell: Let us at least get the facts clear. How many German troops


are involved? What particular form of training are they engaged in? Are they training alongside British troops or on their own?

The Prime Minister: We have not yet reached a final decision because we have not a clear picture of what is wanted. It is a question of making an existing Army tank range available for tank training.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that Spanish troops will not be here next year?

Mr. Davies: Owing to the most unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall avail myself of the first possible opportunity on the Adjournment to raise this matter again.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (HOME SECRETARY'S SPEECH)

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Madrid on relations with Spain, as reported in an official communiqué of the Spanish Government, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Jeger: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Madrid on Sunday, 21st May, about relations with Spain, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Madrid on 22nd May, about Spain's relations with the western world, represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister if the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department about relations with Spain, at a dinner given by Señor Castiella, the Spanish Foreign Minister, in Madrid, as released by the Spanish Ministry of Information, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mendelson: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for the Home Departmen

in Madrid on 20th May, about relations with Spain, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if the speech made in Madrid by the Secretary of Sate for the Home Department concerning Spain's relations with the western world represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister if the recent speech by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Madrid, concerning Spain's relations with the West, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Prime Minister if the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Madrid, confirmed by the British Embassy in Madrid, concerning Spain's relations with the western world, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Madrid on Monday, 22nd May, about relations with Spain, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Madrid about relations with Spain, reported in an official communiqué by the Spanish Government, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Wade: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Madrid on 21st May, 1961, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister whether the recent speech made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Madrid concerning relations with Spain represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend's remarks, which were made informally at a private occasion, are in accord with Her Majesty's Government's policy of working for friendly relations between Spain and other Western countries.

Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware that his explanation, such as it is, will not be considered satisfactory by very large numbers of people to whom the Home Secretary's remarks have caused concern? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary's words inevitably revive suspicion that Her Majesty's Government are planning to sponsor the admission of Franco-Spain into N.A.T.O.? Would the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of formally denying that Her Majesty's Government have any such intention, in view of the fact that such a step would undermine support for the alliance in wide sections of public opinion throughout Western Europe?
Further, if the Home Secretary's remarks were of a personal and private nature, is it really appropriate that the Home Secretary should barge into such a delicate issue as this on the eve of an official visit by the Foreign Secretary to Spain? Would it not be equally appropriate for the Foreign Secretary at a private dinner in Spain tonight to announce support for flogging in Britain.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has asked so many questions that I hope he will forgive me if I miss trying to answer them all. With regard to the first, whether my reply has or has not the general support of the country, I think it will have. These things are decided from time to time every four or five years, and I am not at all unhappy about what the country will say about our conduct, including my right hon. Friend's. With regard to the second question, my right hon. Friend did not, of course, mention the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The question of Spanish membership is not before the Organisation. In addition, it might comfort the hon. Member to know that the Spanish Foreign Minister has publicly stated several times and recently repeated that Spain has never applied directly or indirectly or made any approach to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and has no intention of doing so.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister agree that the Home Secretary's speech was nevertheless released to the Spanish Press by the Spanish Ministry of Information? Can he say whether the release was agreed by the

Home Secretary, and is he aware that the Economist described the visit in these terms:
The release was made after a proper, even generous, consultation. Mr. Butler, as a matter of fact, did not say a shade less than was reported; he said a good deal more. The Spanish listeners did not imagine that Mr. Butler was supporting the entry of Spain into Nato; they heard him say it.
Is it the case that the right hon. Gentleman did say that or not?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend assures me that statement is completely incorrect. He made no reference of any kind to N.A.T.O. Whether a representative of the Economist was present at the dinner, I do not know. It was quite a small dinner. There was no question of this at all. With regard to publication, I can see no objection to the publication of a summary of his remarks, since they were in accord with Her Majesty's Government's policy.

Mr. Gaitskell: Did the Home Secretary agree to that summary or not? Is the Prime Minister aware that, whether the Economist was present or not, a great many people seem to have heard what was said at the dinner?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but that is no reason for saying untruthfully what was not said.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister answer my earlier question? Was the release agreed to by the Home Secretary or not?

The Prime Minister: The text of the release was not seen and was not agreed to by my right hon. Friend who went off next day for his holiday, but it was understood between the Embassy and the Spanish Government that a summary of the remarks would be published.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the liberal-minded Home Secretary is widely reported as having said that Spain represents an essential factor for the West? Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain which peculiarity of Fascist dictatorship is lacking in the West at the moment?

The Prime Minister: There are other traditions of the Spanish people which are great traditions, including, among others, being a great Christian country.

Mr. Zilliacus: As the Home Secretary's statement included the assertion that Spain should be fully integrated into the West, would the Prime Minister explain what that means? Does it mean N.A.T.O. or the Common Market, or both? Further, is the Prime Minister aware that the policy of trying to use Fascist régimes as bulwarks against Communism helped to bring on the Second World War, and is he aware that the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have a very evil record as pro-Fascist appeasers? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government are not attempting that policy again by smuggling Franco into N.A.T.O. by the back door?

The Prime Minister: I am not at all surprised at the hon. Member's supplementary question. He must not attempt to play out time. I must be given a chance of answering and I have only half a minute. Almost everything that the hon. Member has said I know he holds very strong views about. All I was saying is that there were examples in the last few years of closer work between the Spanish Government and people and our own. I will give two. Her Majesty's Government supported Spain's entry into the United Nations. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer the preliminary steps were taken, and I think finally made, for Spain's entry into the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. I think that both those were good moves.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Brockway.

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I draw your attention to the fact that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have been rising—

Mr. Manuel: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not tabled any of these Questions.

Mr. Iremonger: —and to the fact that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have a very different attitude from that of hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members cannot develop views on points of order. What is happening at the moment is that I am endeavouring to allow hon. Members who had Questions on the Order Paper to ask supplementary questions.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whether it is a majority or a minority of our people, a very large number of our people are gravely concerned about the statement which the Home Secretary is reported to have made? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, a very large proportion. Does he regard this as a proper method by which a statement of this character should be made—in the form of incidental remarks at a private meeting? Does it not mean that the whole basis of Western democracy will be denied if we are going to welcome the co-operation of a dictatorship?

The Prime Minister: I think we welcome all steps which make countries get on better together, even though they have Governments of which we may disapprove. For instance, I have done my best to get better relations with the Communist countries.

Mr. Mendelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who support the alliance because we look upon it as a defensive alliance for democracy would find it completely unsupportable were Fascist Spain allowed to enter N.A.T.O.? Will he give the House a categorical assurance that Her Majesty's Government will oppose any application that may be made on behalf of Spain?

The Prime Minister: The question does not arise because the Spanish Government have not the slightest intention of applying.

Mr. Driberg: Would the Prime Minister consider publishing in HANSARD not merely a summary but the full text of the Home Secretary's remarks? Would he also say what exactly was meant—I am sorry if right hon. Gentlemen think this is so funny; it is rather a serious matter to some of us—if N.A.T.O. has nothing to do with it, by such a phrase as "the full incorporation of Spain in the Western world"? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard Spain as part of what he calls the free world?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question—I have already dealt with the others—I am afraid that it would not be possible to publish the text, because I am told that it does not exist.

Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the other questions.

Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that he need not make any apology to the House of the country for the remarks of the Home Secretary, which broadly have the support of the people of this country? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House why it appears in some quarters to be wrong for Spain to be part of the Western world but proper for Red China to be part of the greater United Nations organisation?

The Prime Minister: I really think that rather more has been made of this incident than it justifies. I think that the whole thing is rather a storm in a teacup. My right hon. Friend went to a dinner and made a few friendly observations, a summary of which was then published. What the Opposition are trying to do is what all Oppositions do. They are trying to turn this into a lurid and dramatic tale. The public is already bored with the whole thing.

Mr. Dodds: As it is obvious that better relations are contemplated, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that Spain has behaved and is behaving in a very shabby way towards a most loyal part of the British Commonwealth—Gibraltar? Is he not aware of the restrictions against labour, commerce, sporting and cultural relations? Does he not know that the one agreement which was made last year was a crafty arrangement which allowed Gibraltarians to spend their money in Spain but did not allow visitors, Spanish or any others, into Gibraltar? Will he give an undertaking that there is to be no improvement until this very loyal community of the British Commonwealth is treated in the way we would want to be treated by Spain?

The Prime Minister: I have a great deal of sympathy on this matter. We have made efforts to improve the relations in respect of Gibraltar. Some of the restrictions were removed last year, and there has, I think, been a general improvement recently. But I do not see how we are going to make progress in this matter and influence the Spanish Government except by making an effort to get on more friendly terms.

Mr. J. Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many of us find it very difficult to understand why it should be considered more permissible to forgive and forget what happened in Hungary five years ago than it is to forgive and forget what happened in Spain nearly a generation ago? Might I further ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that it would help more to speed up the tempo of liberalisation in Spain, which we all desire to see, if there could be a cessation of the hate campaign that seems for some reason or other still to continue on the Opposition benches?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. What we want to try to do is to improve our relations with all countries, including Spain. We have our own feelings, our own sentiments and our own beliefs, but I do not think that we are likely to make progress by trying to exacerbate the differences between countries. Rather, we should, in spite of them, try to establish friendly relations. That applies to all countries.

Mr. Hamilton: Was the Prime Minister aware that that speech was going to be made before it was made? Can he for the purposes of the record define what he means by "Christianity", or does he agree with the former Colonial Secretary that Franco is a "gallant Christian gentleman?"

Sir K. Pickthorn: Oh, shut up.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the—

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard an hon. Gentleman opposite say "shut up". If he cares to see me outside I will shut him up.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: As far as I remember, the Prime Minister was in the course of answering a question. I have quite forgotten what the question was, but I think that was the position.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a supplementary question, and I think I should be entitled to a reply. I asked originally whether the Prime Minister knew that the speech


was going to be made and whether he knew of the contents.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn the second half of his question, which I thought to be both irrelevant and offensive. With regard to the first part, I understand that my right hon. Friend was called upon to speak. I said that I could not publish the text, because he had lost the menu card on which he had scribbled a few notes. He spoke extempore and made a few friendly observations, and hence all this trouble.

Mr. R. Edwards: The Prime Minister has just stated that Spain is a great Christian country. Has he read the petition to Franco sent by 350 Catholic priests in Spain protesting about the torture of Catholic citizens? Would not he agree that the most certain way of bringing Spain into the community of nations would be for Franco to declare a political amnesty and allow free institutions to develop?

The Prime Minister: I do not disagree with that, but these are criticisms of the Spanish Government and I was referring to the Spanish people as a whole. I do not understand why, if it is thought that we can perhaps bring some influence to bear on Communist countries by improving our relations with them—perhaps improving their conduct—it should be absolutely wrong to try to get friendly relations with and to bring influence to bear on non-Communist countries which happen to be part of the general European tradition.

Mr. Iremonger: Will my right hon. Friend take note of but not be unduly impressed by the pathological hysteria of the Bourbons opposite who have forgotten nothing and learnt nothing?

Mr. Wade: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the conflict in the world today is primarily ideological? That being so, would not he also agree that any speech made by a British Minister which, by implication, suggests that Britain is lending her support to a country which is, unfortunately, in many respects as illiberal as Communist countries,

may do much greater harm than any benefit to be derived militarily or economically? Are we not being dangerously cynical in expressing support for the dictators of Portugal and Spain?

The Prime Minister: All these considerations are very relevant and show the importance of keeping a balanced approach to this and to other problems.

R.A.F. AIRCRAFT, MALAYA (ACCIDENT)

Mr. Cronin (by Private Notice): Mr. Cronin (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which a Hastings Transport Aircraft crashed in Malaya yesterday.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): A Royal Air Force Hastings aircraft of Far East Air Force crashed yesterday near Singapore while taking part in a routine supply dropping exercise. The crew of five and the eight soldiers who were in the aircraft were all killed. The cause of the accident is now being investigated by a board of inquiry.
I should like to express my sympathy and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War with the relatives of those who lost their lives in this tragic accident.

Mr. Cronin: I join with the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, in expressing our deep sympathy for the relatives of the fine young men who died in the performance of their duty. Will he undertake to make a further statement if any unusual circumstances emerge from the board of inquiry? This might be particularly desirable, as the Hastings aircraft has so far had a very good record.

Mr. Taylor: It is not the usual practice to publish either the report or the findings of such a board of inquiry, but if the board suggests any unusual causes or features of the accident I shall certainly consider the need for a further statement.

Orders of the Day — NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to enable the Minister of Transport to make advances to Cunard White Star Limited in connection with the construction of a large vessel for the North Atlantic shipping trade, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the provisions, either wholly out of the Consolidated Fund or in part out of the Consolidated Fund and in part out of money provided by Parliament, of sums not exceeding eighteen million pounds to be advanced to the said company either wholly as loans, or partly as loans and partly as grants;
(b) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums payable under any provision of the said Act authorising the Minister of Transport to enter into any agreement with the said company concerning the insurance of any risks;
(c) the borrowing of money for the purposes of the said Act in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act, 1939;
(d) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the said Act of the present Session and their re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO MAKE ADVANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF VESSEL.)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "eighteen" and to insert "twelve".
The purpose of the Amendment is to reduce the loan of £18 million, which the Government propose to make to the Cunard Company for the purpose of building a new ship, to £12 million. Before I come to the body of the Amendment I must say how surprised my colleagues and I were, when we saw the Notice Paper today, to find that, despite all the noise and protests and outbursts of indignation from Members opposite during the Second Reading

debate, not a single hon. Member opposite has put down an Amendment to try to improve the Bill or to alter it in any way. It is particularly surprising, in view of the threats of some hon. Members opposite to deal with the Bill in Committee.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) said that he hoped that the Bill would be strangled in Committee, but he has not put down a single Amendment himself—nor, indeed, have any of his colleagues. We are, therefore, most anxious to know what has happened. Why has this criticism vanished? Have Members opposite been told off by the authorities of their party? Have they been whipped by the Whips and told that they must not go on being naughty boys? I do not know, but something strange has obviously occurred to change this mood of criticism and opposition to one, apparently, of compliance with and acceptance of the Bill.
It will be interesting to see to what extent they give support to this Amendment, which is an exceedingly important one, and which seeks to reduce the amount which the Government propose to lend to the Cunard Company by £6 million. That is not an arbitrary figure. We have good reason for suggesting it.
During the Second Reading debate, many Members on both sides doubted the wisdom of devoting such a very large part of our national resources to this venture. They thought that these resources could be used for much better purposes in helping our country by developing our inventions and furthering its interests in other ways. One Member opposite went so far as to condemn the Government for trying to support an outmoded status symbol.
Some of us on this side particularly considered that, if one took into account the traffic in the North Atlantic, it was probable that the numbers of people likely to cross by sea in future would fall. It seemed that there was considerable evidence to support that contention, but it was not the view of the Government. They may be right and we may be wrong, but the Minister of Transport said, by implication, that he thought that this venture was likely to be commercially justifiable.
Presumably that is the view also of the Cunard Company, otherwise it would not be putting up its money and undertaking to build this great ship. Therefore, we asked many times during Second Reading why, if it was the view of the Government and of the Cunard Company that this was commercially desirable and had good prospects, the company was not putting up a larger slice of the money. It was asked why the company was demanding £18 million from the Government. The answer we got to that question was that this was all the Cunard Company could afford to put up. When we said that the company had reserves of £35 million in the balance sheet, we were told that we must consider the company's fleet and the number of replacements it had to make from time to time, and that its reserves were all earmarked for that purpose.
The answers at that stage sounded, if not convincing, at any rate plausible. But it so happens, by a fortunate coincidence, that at the same time that we are considering this Bill today, with the proposed loan of £18 million to the company on the ground that it cannot afford more money to finance the ship itself, the company is proposing to spend £6 million of its money in buying two aeroplanes, which will compete with the new ship to which the Government are contributing such a large sum, and will compete even more severely with our nationalised, publicly-owned British Overseas Airways Corporation. We cannot now accept the argument that the Cunard Company, if it wanted to, could not have put up more money for the ship, as it now proposes to spend £6 million in buying two aircraft to fly across the North Atlantic.
It therefore seems logical to say, in view of what has happened since Second Reading, that the Government should reduce this loan by the £6 million which the company now finds that it can afford in order to operate these two aeroplanes, which would compete with, and damage considerably, the interests of a publicly-owned corporation. Why should the Government lend money to a private company which will free an equivalent amount of its resources to inflict grave damage on a public enterprise?
That, however, is what will happen if this proposal to lend £18 million to the company is accepted by the Committee. That proposition obviously violates the public interest and it should be decisively rejected. The Cunard Company is fully entitled, under an Act passed by Parliament, to apply for a licence to run a trans-Atlantic air service in competition with B.O.A.C. We strenuously opposed that Act, but it was passed, nevertheless, and the company is entitled to make this application. We do not, however, think it should make this application on the strength of money which it is to borrow from the Government for another purpose. Yet that is what is happening.
The Committee should realise what the consequences are likely to be if the application is granted. These two aircraft will form the nucleus of a fleet which will compete with B.O.A.C. a publicly-owned enterprise whose capital is entirely owned by the taxpayer, and will deprive B.O.A.C. annually of a gross income of £7½ million. That is the best calculation that has been made. Admittedly, it has been made by B.O.A.C., but it has not been controverted.
Thus, if the application succeeds, B.O.A.C. and the taxpayer will lose £7½ million a year in gross receipts. That will inevitably do grave harm to B.O.A.C. and to the taxpayer and will seriously prejudice the effectiveness and competitiveness of B.O.A.C. in world air transport. It would be a tragedy if the Cunard Company was allowed to do this, and it will be madness if it is enabled to do so as a result of a loan given by the taxpayer which will free £6 million of the company's resources for investment in these aircraft.
Our case is that in view of the company's intention and apparent ability to invest £6 million in another venture, we cannot accept the contention that it is impossible for it to find another £6 million to build another new "Queen". The Government loan should, therefore, be reduced by a corresponding amount.
Moreover, when we know that the company's £6 million, if it is permitted to be invested in this way, will threaten the solvency and prestige of a world-renowned, publicly-owned British enterprise, the case for this Committee refusing to assist it in carrying out its plans is


overwhelmingly strong. We therefore invite the Committee to accept the Amendment and to say that, in view of the circumstances and the change which has arisen since Second Reading, we should now reduce the proposed loan from £18 million to £12 million, and should ask the Cunard Company to use the £6 million which it has available to buy aircraft for building the new ship, and thus impose a lesser burden on the taxpayers.

Mr. Paul Williams: The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has enjoyed himself in twitting me for not having put down Amendments. My view is that it is perfectly reasonable, as we are taking a line almost identical to his on Second Reading and on this Amendment and perhaps in due course on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", to use those opportunities to "strangle the Bill in Committee stage". If the right hon. Gentleman wants to twit me for not having put down Amendments, I do not mind. What he is saying will not alter my view about supporting his Amendment and supporting him on other issues later.
The issues which the right hon. Gentleman raised in connection with Cunard-Eagle Airways and B.O.A.C. were irrelevant and that matter, which is now before the Air Transport Licensing Board, ought to be determined on its merits and not by external considerations such as those which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that I have always supported, and still do, the general principle that there should be competition on the air routes so as to provide a stimulus and incentive to B.O.A.C. and so that the second carrier could provide services which the public needs.
Having said that, I think that there is justice in the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to reduce the amount of the Government advance from £18 million to £12 million—the difference of £6 million being the figure which the right hon. Gentleman talks about in connection with the Cunard-Eagle development.
The most interesting thing which has come out of the Air Licensing Board conversations is the remark made by

Sir John Brocklebank, which was reported in The Times on the 19th of this month, when Sir John was asked about financing developments in the air. He said that there was no inability to find more than the £12 million. I go on to use his exact words:
It should be 'unwillingness'. The amount to be found was not the crucial point: it was the risk element and the profit element of any unit which had to last 25 years and cost £30 million.
With respect to the Cunard management, that appears to cast aspersions on the managerial ability and risk-taking qualities of Cunard and on its confidence in the future. On those grounds alone the Amendment is worth supporting.
If one makes comparisons with other shipping companies which are sustaining their own rebuilding programmes out of their own profits, for example, P & O, one sees that it can be done. We have not arrived at a moment when the nation needs to provide £18 million of taxpayers' money—the line which the right hon. Gentleman took up and which, I regret to say, I launched on Second Reading—for building ships when the company itself is using its own money for getting into air transport. This is a perfectly legitimate moment for trying to strangle the Bill in Committee and on those grounds I support the right hon. Gentleman in asking for a reduction of £6 million in the money to be made available.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: After that speech we shall expect to see the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) in the Division Lobby with us so that he can perform this strangling operation, or, at any rate, make his contribution, however modest, to it.
The hon. Member quoted from The Times the remark of Sir John Brocklebank—which, strangely enough, I saw in no other newspaper—and that remark confirmed our demand, voiced on Second Reading, that the Report of the Chandos Committee should be submitted to Parliament.
It is obvious that the risks suggested by Sir John Brocklebank must have been known to the Government and, therefore, to the Chandos Committee. That risk has been undertaken by the Government and it is a risk which involves the


Government in the payment of more than £3 million and a loan at a rate much below that at which it would have been provided in the City of London—for it is obvious that if the Cunard Company had applied for a loan from that quarter it would have had to pay not 6½ per cent. but at least 8 per cent. and probably 10 per cent., having regard to the risks involved.
Why should the Government undertake this risk? Were they so very anxious to boost the shipbuilding industry, which is now in a sluggish condition and which may remain so for a considerable time, that they decided to provide what many people regard as a white elephant, as it has been described in the columns of The Times and other reputable newspapers? Was it necessary for the Government to undertake this risk?
I pose what I believe is the fundamental question which ought to be answered by the Government and by hon. Members opposite, some of whom have an interest in this project. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is in his place. On Second Reading he made a long and eloquent speech from a brief no doubt prepared by the Cunard Company or its subsidiary.

Mr. F. A. Burden: There was no brief prepared by the Cunard Company. I am not a director of the Cunard Steamship Company, but I feel very strongly about the matter. I have an association with it, but I took considerable trouble to dig up the facts for myself.

Mr. Shinwell: Of course the hon. Member has an association. Is he not a director of the subsidiary, Eagle Airways?

Mr. Burden: Yes, and I declared it.

Mr. Shinwell: This is almost a violation of the Illegal Practices Act. After all is said and done, the hon. Member comes to Parliament and makes a plea for a substantial grant of money from the Government out of the pockets of the taxpayers, for whom he sometimes makes eloquent pleas, and then he has to declare his interest in the project.
It might have been more honourable on the hon. Gentleman's part if he had left it to others without a financial interest in this project. Of course he has

a financial interest. The sum of £6 million is to be provided by the Government to provide this air project which could have been amply provided by the Cunard Line itself. Talk about corruption! This is about the worst example of corruption which I have seen in the House of Commons for many years and it ought to be condemned, as I condemn it. What extenuation of the hon. Member's conduct may emerge I do not know.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is imputing to me motives which do not exist. I have always declared my interest in this matter. May I, through you, Sir Gordon, ask that the right hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to impute dishonourable motives to an hon. Member who happens to speak about an undertaking with which he is associated, but in respect of which he has declared his interest?

The Chairman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman was not attributing corrupt motives to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden).

Mr. Shinwell: I wonder what it is, then. Suppose, for example, I came to the House having a financial interest in a project which required a substantial grant from the Government before it could be implemented. How would it be regarded by hon. Members opposite? It seems to me that it is a most dishonourable act on the part of the hon. Member to come forward attempting—

The Chairman: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) must not use the word "dishonourable".

Mr. Shinwell: Naturally, I am quite willing not to do so if you say that I ought not to use that word, Sir Gordon, but that is my conviction, nevertheless, and I feel very strongly about it. It is most deplorable and I have been waiting for an opportunity of saying so.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order. I must ask for your indulgence and protection, Sir Gordon. Although the right hon. Gentleman said that he would withdraw on your instructions, he immediately said afterwards, "Those are my views". The right hon. Gentleman should have the courage either not to withdraw the remark and to defy the Chair, or have the grace and good


manners, which the House of Commons usually possesses, to withdraw in a gracious and proper manner.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order. Are you ruling, Sir Gordon, that it is out of order on the part of an hon. Member to say that another hon. Member would be acting more honourably if he kept silent about a project in which he has a personal interest? What is wrong with saying that?

The Chairman: There is nothing wrong with saying that, but it is wrong to attribute to any hon. Member action based on dishonourable or corrupt conduct.

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot understand this. I do not think that I have infringed any rule. I have been in Parliament for a long time and I understand its rules and I would not make any accusation against the hon. Member if it had not been for the speech which he delivered on Second Reading and the inescapable fact that he has a definite financial interest in this project. Let him deny it if he can. I think that I am entitled to express my views on his conduct. Of course he does not like it, which is precisely why I am saying it. Acts of this kind should be exposed. That is what I am doing and I hope that notice will be taken, both here and elsewhere.
Let us consider what the position is. I was about to pose the question whether it was necessary for the Cunard Line to obtain this grant. Did it not have any money? Did it not have ample reserves? It has been admitted by those who took part in the recent inquiry, about whether the Cunard Company should be permitted to exploit the air routes through its subsidiary Eagle Airways, that the company had adequate funds available. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South quoted what Sir John Brocklebank has said. I repeat it, for it should be placed on record. Sir John said that there was no inability to find more than £12 million and said:
It should be 'unwillingness'".
What does that mean? What interpretation can we place on that statement?
The Cunard Line had the money, but was unwilling to provide it because the weak-kneed Government were prepared

to come to its rescue. Why? Why are the Government not prepared to come to the rescue of other ship-owning firms? Why are they not prepared to come to the rescue of ship-building, which has suffered a very heavy blow?
Why come to the rescue of the Cunard Company which, as its chairman admits, came to the Government not because it needed the money, but because it was unwilling to find it? What does it do with the money it has? It uses it for the purpose of entering into competition in the air. I do not object to competition if it is essential. I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. If it is essential to have competition in the air, or elsewhere, let us have it if that is of advantage to the nation. The Cunard Company did not require this assistance. Why is it getting it? I want an answer to that question.
Mr. Fisher, who was conducting the inquiry, questioned Mr. Banberg, who is, presumably, associated with Eagle Airways. He agreed that £16 million was shown on the Cunard Company's balance sheet as reserves for capital ship replacements and general contingency reserve. If £16 million is reserved for replacements, why do the Government consider it necessary to provide £3 million more by way of grant and £14 million at a reduced rate of interest? Those questions ought to be answered before the Bill goes through.
Mr. Banberg was also asked why the Cunard Company could not find more than £12 million for the new "Queen" if it could find £6 million for the Boeings. He said that it took about twenty-five years to amortise a ship. If the depreciation requires that period, clearly we ought not to proceed with a project of this kind. I have no animus against the Cunard Company. It has been responsible for considerable achievements in shipping. It has made great contributions to the progress of shipbuilding. I recognise all that, but if the money is to be made available—and, by the way, money is not available for other more necessary projects in other industrial spheres—and if the pockets of the taxpayers are to be tapped in this fashion, it should be done only for the purpose of assisting shipping and shipbuilding in general and should not be peculiar to the Cunard Company.
In my view there is no satisfactory answer to the question I put. I want to know whether the Government considered this matter from the standpoint of what was inquired into by the Chandos Committee. I repeat my request during the Second Reading debate. Let us have the Chandos Committee's Report and find out what is at the bottom of all this.
When the Government produced the Bill, were they aware that the chairman of the Cunard Company was strongly of the opinion that it was not because the company had not the money, but because of its unwillingness to provide the money that it wanted to saddle the Government with the risk entailed? If the Government were aware of that, they also are guilty of sharp practice in not informing the House of that fact. Let us get the facts, and on the basis of the facts let the Committee be honourable about it and vote accordingly.

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) would have been much more effective had he been less vicious and spiteful. I have always declared my interest in these matters. It is the accepted procedure that every hon. Member who speaks on any subject in which he has an interest declares his interest. On certain occasions I have heard the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) declare his interest, and there have never been the abusive remarks levelled at him by hon. Members on this side as were levelled at me by the right hon. Member for Easington.
The right hon. Gentleman is not nearly so highly thought of today after his considerable failure to produce coal in this country, when he was Minister of Fuel and Power, during the war. As age comes along one is more moderate on these matters, but it seems to me that the Committee, including the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will forgive me for saying this, has rather wandered from the terms of the Amendment. I should like to try to get the Committee back to the Amendment.
4.15 p.m.
It appears that the Amendment is being used as a vehicle by hon. Gentlemen opposite for attacking Cunard Eagle Airways Limited, of which I am a director, for its application to the Licensing Board

for permission to fly the North Atlantic. It seems to me that the Amendment is being used as a veiled threat to the Licensing Board to try to stop it from determining in its own way within its terms of reference the decision to which it should come.
The project of the new "Queen" came about before I, as a member of Eagle Airlines, or, indeed, the Cunard Company, had the slightest idea that the two would become associated, and that the Government would bring in a Bill to enable that to be done.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that because of the new circumstances a new figure should now be written into the Bill?

Mr. Burden: I shall deal with that point.
The right hon. Member for Easington was exaggerating when he said that, because Cunard Eagle Airways was due to spend £6 million on aircraft for the North Atlantic route, that would probably create insolvency in the B.O.A.C. If he believes that, it is time that the B.O.A.C. faced the competition which apparently right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite fear so much.

Mr. Strauss: A loss of £7½ million gross revenue from the B.O.A.C. might well turn a yearly profit into a yearly loss.

Mr. Burden: I do not accept that, and neither would the right hon Gentleman if he looked at this in an objective and honest way. Traffic on the North Atlantic route is increasing at an enormous rate each year. If, in five years, B.O.A.C. carried 80 per cent. of the total traffic, it would carry more traffic than if it carried 100 per cent. today.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Burden: I am sorry. I have no intention of giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. We are discussing the North Atlantic Shipping Bill. A separate one-ship holding company is to be formed which will be responsible for operating the new "Queen", and it would seem that hon. Gentlemen opposite have changed their views since the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Shinwell: What money has the hon. Gentleman put in as a director?

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman is offensive not only when he is standing, but when he is in a sedentary position.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman has admitted that he is a director of Eagle Airways. What money has he put into this fine project, which he thinks will succeed within the next five years? What money has been put in by any of his co-directors? Not a penny. The money is being put in by the Government.

Mr. Burden: It may well be—

Mr. Shinwell: Answer the question.

Mr. Burden: It may well be that my services are considered more valuable to the company than the services of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. Shinwell: What money has the hon. Gentleman put in?

Mr. Burden: The position, as I see it, is this. What right hon. and hon. Members opposite have to make up their minds about is whether they really want this ship to be built; whether, in fact, if this Amendment were carried, and the Cunard company were to say, "We will no longer go on," they would be prepared to say, "We are glad that we did this, that we brought about this situation, and the unemployment and difficulties to the shipbuilding industry in the North are the result of our action" That is the position which hon. Gentlemen opposite would have to accept, and they must face it. They have to accept that if the amount is reduced to £12 million, the Cunard Company might well say, "We will not provide the extra money."
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have made play with the fact that some companies have spent a considerable amount of money on shipping replacements since the war. It should be made clear that in this respect the record of the Cunard Company is second to none. It has already spent sums amounting to £30 million on ship replacements and rebuilding since the war, in the provision of smaller vessels which may be used properly and more flexibly in a fleet. The Chandos Committee and

the Government decided that this ship must be of this size—

Mr. James Callaghan: Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East) indicated dissent.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he looks at the facts and at the Report and the debate he will find—

Mr. Shinwell: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the Report?

Mr. Burden: —that the Chandos Committee and the Government—and also the French, have implied it by the size of the vessel that they are building—decided that this ship should be this size.

Mr. Shinwell: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) does not know what is in the Chandos Committee's Report, as he has not seen that Report. At least, I assume that he has not seen it. If he has, he should tell the Committee. That is another reason why we ought all to be able to see the Report. But the important issue is the terms of reference to the Chandos Committee. In effect, it was told that a Cunard liner of this size was to be built and it is the terms of reference to which we object so much.

Mr. Burden: That is not strictly true. The Minister has stated—I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have noted this—that the Chandos Committee made this recommendation, although it was not given to the Committee to read the whole of what was, in fact, the recommendation of the Chandos Committee regarding this.
We should be wise—I say this not because of my association with the company, but because I believe it to be so—to consider the two things as entirely divorced. This was a project entered into long ago, and I believe that if right hon. and hon. Members opposite are sincere and earnest about pressing this matter, they should also be prepared to accept full responsibility if the Cunard Company said, "Very well, we cannot go on and this ship will not be built"—with all the consequences which would follow.

Mr. Shinwell: And the hon. Gentleman would not be a director.

Mr. Burden: It is an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Shinwell: I have got you.

Mr. Burden: —is not only noisy and offensive, but is so often so wrong in so many things that one wonders how it was that he ever became a Minister.

Mr. John Diamond: There are three main reasons why I think that a new figure ought to be written into the Bill, but before explaining them in detail may I take up the speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). With all respect and friendliness towards by right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I suggest that he was a little too hard on the hon. Member for Gillingham. After all, think of the position of the Government. Were it not for the fact that the hon. Member for Gillingham has a personal interest in this matter and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) has a constituency interest there would have been no speeches from the Government back benches in support of this Bill at all. It is the essence of democracy—

Mr. Callaghan: Even if they have to pay.

Mr. Diamond: Even if they have to pay.
With deference to my right hon. Friend, what was the point of asking the hon. Member for Gillingham what he had put into it? My right hon. Friend should have asked what he was getting out of it.

Mr. Shinwell: Ask him now.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend would not get an answer.

Mr. Diamond: This is the Committee stage of the Bill, and there will be ample opportunity for the hon. Member for Gillingham to enlighten us, and to fill in the details which he has left blank.
I say this with all seriousness. Every hon. Member is compelled, and, naturally, does so, to decide as he thinks appropriate about speeches made by hon. Members who have an interest in the matter. It is up to any hon. Member to assess such speeches and to discount—in certain obvious cases by 100 per cent.—speeches made by hon. Members

who are directors or have a personal interest.
The first of the three reasons refers directly to the Minister and I must address these remarks precisely to him. During the Second Reading debate, and almost at the very start of the Minister's speech, he said:
The story started two or three years ago, when Cunard told the Government that it could not find enough capital, either from its own resources or by borrowing on the market, to replace the 'Queen Mary'…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1961; Vol. 639, c. 914.]
That is the statement of the Minister and we are entitled to rely on it. It was made in the first part of the debate on Second Reading and it is the most authoritative statement which could be made, in the most authoritative position in the context of the speech. We are now told, in the most authoritative way, by the most authoritative person from the Cunard Company, that this statement is not true.
This is an unfortunate position to be in, and I am indebted, as is the whole Committee, to my right hon. Friend for having brought it forward. It is all clearly stated, and one or other—the hon. Gentleman, who is a managing director, or the Minister—is wrong. I am putting at its minimum, and in absolutely appropriate Parliamentary terms, that this Committee is being misled by somebody, and we must have the matter cleared up so that we know where we stand. That is the first and a very compelling reason.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out when moving the Amendment, there is at least £6 million available in the coffers of the Cunard Company and there is no reason whatever—the Minister owes it to his own reputation—why the Amendment should not be accepted and the amount reduced to £12 million. That is the first and powerful reason touching the honour of the Minister and there is nothing more important than that to every hon. Member.
The second reason is what has happened since the Second Reading regarding knowledge of the appropriate size of liners and, therefore, the appropriate cost of liners of different sizes. I wish to quote from The Times of 25th May, from an article headed, "New liner for Atlantic". This new liner is to be a 30,000-tonner. Before I refer to the details, I wish again to refer to the Minister


as the source of all reliable information. During the Second Reading debate he detailed reasons why this undisclosed Chandos Committee's Report recommended a very large ship and he concluded with the following sentence:
Any ship which can operate on the Atlantic express passenger service is bound to be unsuitable for other trades."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1961; Vol. 639, c. 920.]—
that is to say, the tourist trade, winter cruises, and so on. The whole argument put up against a large ship was that a smaller ship could go cruising in winter.
The Minister's reply was definitely against this, and no doubt had some support which is not disclosed to us and to which we pay no attention. Whatever the party rules may be, there is one certain thing, that none of us will pay attention to a Report which we are not allowed to look at. Whether the Minister should be required to put the Report on the Table is another matter. But if the Report is not disclosed, we are not bound by it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. P. Williams: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that the reasons behind the Chandos Committee's Report, in which it states that there must be weekly sailings, is that this matter is parallel with taxis and hackney carriages, which go off the roads to be refuelled. This is presumably on the basis of the carriage of mail. There must be weekly sailings because the mail must go, but, in any case, the mail probably goes by air now, so that that argument falls to the ground.

Mr. Diamond: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument. The argument which the Chandos Committee allegedly uses is indefensible. I take the view that I do not know of that Report, because I am not allowed to see it. Any Report which is withheld from Members of Parliament, when they are being asked to vote £18 million of public money to be devoted for a certain purpose, is not to be regarded by us at all, if only as a protest against the practice of treating Members of Parliament like children.
I come back to the Minister's comment to the effect that any ship built for the express North Atlantic passenger service

is quite unsuitable for other trades, and I turn again to the report in The Times of 25th May on the new liner. It stated that it is to be of 30,000 tons, with room for 400 first-class passengers and 1,100 tourist class, a total of 1,500. The tonnage is 30,000 for this ship, compared with the 75,000 tons for the new "Queen", which will be two-and-a-half times larger. The new "Queen" is to carry approximately 2,200 passengers, against 1,500 in the other case, so that the new "Queen" is to be twice the tonnage but is to carry only half as many passengers again.
Now let us compare the price. The price of this new liner is to be £9 million, and the price is being put up by private enterprise. There is room far private enterprise to do its job and for public enterprise to do its job, but what we are objecting to here is an unfortunate marriage between the two. This private enterprise ship is to cost £9 million, against the £30 million for the new "Queen", which is to carry half as many passengers again. The new "Queen" is to cost about three and a half times the cost of the private enterprise ship, it is two and a half times the tonnage, and yet it carries only 50 per cent. more passengers. This, surely, requires explanation.
What do those who are putting up their own money to run this ship say about it? They are putting up their own money, not the money of their respective Governments, and this is what they say:
We examined all sizes up to 70,000 tons, and we rejected the larger ship, because it would be a white elephant for winter cruising, and we think anyone who builds for the North Atlantic in winter is plain crazy.
These are not words which I would use in this Chamber; I am only quoting them, but with approval. They conclude:
In winter, flying above the clouds is much pleasanter.
I repeat that the summary conclusion of the Minister was:
Any ship which can operate on the Atlantic express passenger service is bound to be unsuitable for other trades."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1961; Vol. 639, c. 920.]
The second reason why we are right now to lower the figure in the Bill is that it has been demonstrated since the Second Reading that the way to achieve the Government's object in carrying on


the North Atlantic express passenger service is to have smaller ships, which can do winter cruising as well, and thus reduce the total cost to about £9 million. The Cunard Company could pay more, and could put even more into Eagle Airways, pay even higher directors' fees and buy even more American aeroplanes, instead of supporting British.

Mr. John Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee at what speed it is estimated this ship can travel during the winter months?

Mr. Diamond: Home Lines did not disclose the speed, but she will probably operate at not less than 24 knots, at a cost of £9 million.

Mr. Callaghan: That is good enough.

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman is making the point that at 24 knots the mail will not get through in time if carried by sea, and will have to be carried by air, I accept his point, but I am sure that he is not living in the distant past, as are the members of the Government Front Bench.
The third point is the administrative reason. It is that at present the Government should be the major partner if they are to put up £18 million, and if the Cunard Company is putting up only £12 million. The Government should be the major partner in this partnership between public and private enterprise. It is normal, if there is a partnership of that kind, that the major partner should have major control, a major share in the profits and dividends and have a major voice in management. All these things are the corollary of a major interest in financing the project, but is this the case here? Indeed, it is not.
As the Bill is drawn, there is no control by the Government whatsoever in the day-to-day management of the company and no broad control of the principles. They have no interest whatsoever, and it would have been wholly inappropriate for a tough negotiator like the Minister. I am quoting his own words. When we were discussing the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill, the suggestion was put forward, but was rejected on the ground that it would limit the possibility of tough negotiation by the Minister when

he came to deal with private enterprise. I recognise that the Minister can be tough if he wants to be, and I hope that he will be very tough in the negotiations, though it does not look as if he has been very tough up to now. He has not been tough at all.

Mr. Shinwell: The matter is settled.

Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend says the matter is settled, but, of course, it is not settled until the agreement is finally made and comes before this House for approval.
I am, therefore, seriously hoping that the Minister will be encouraged by the remarks we are making into seeking to vary the agreement. If we are to have no control, it is quite absurd that we should be the major partner where finance is concerned. If we are to have no interest in the profits, as in this case, it is quite absurd that we should be the major partner in finance. If we are to have no responsibility, and if the arrangement here is that the Cunard Company will have a separate management agreement to carry on the day-today management of the ship, if we are to have no share in the management whatever, it is both absurd and irrational that we should put up the major part of the money as the major partner. These things are illogical, and the Minister is anything but illogical.
The only way in which to make the Government a junior partner in a project of this kind, which would be logical to the Minister's mind, is by providing that the Government will be a partner contributing to the financing of the project appropriately to their share of the profit, responsibilities and dividends. The only way in which the Cunard Company could be the major partner and the Government the minor partner, would be if the Cunard Company were putting up the £18 million and the Government were putting up the £12 million, thereby reducing the figure in the Bill from £18 million to £12 million, as proposed in the Amendment. These are three major reasons why I think that the Government should accept our Amendment.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate on this Amendment he will take very seriously the remarks,


which have been quoted more than once, attributed to Sir John Brocklebank and mentioned in connection with the recent Cunard inquiry, in particular, the word "unwillingness". That is not a word calculated in any way to allay the misgiving which some of us have had about this matter. In the context of Sir John's remarks, which, I am quite sure, have been correctly reported and not unduly misinterpreted, it runs at variance with nearly everything I have understood to be the background of this position.
It is quite true that we have known very little about the background, because we have not been able to see the terms of the Chandos Report, but I, at least, understood—perhaps I got it wrong—that the problem of the Cunard Company was that it had not sufficient funds to do this job. When the word "unwillingness" is used the question which springs to my mind is, who persuaded whom? Was the Cunard Company unwilling to build and have the Government, for perfectly good reasons, been anxious to retain this North Atlantic symbol, or was it the other way about?
One should add some further remarks, at which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) stopped just short, about the inquiry. After the remarks of Mr. Bamberg, who said that it would take about twenty-five years properly to amortise the ship, according to the report in The Times he went on to say:
It is very difficult to look ahead in the Atlantic market to that extent, whereas the Cunard board can look forward for a period of, say, 10 years, and to that extent they are prepared to take the risk in obtaining a reasonable commercial return on a ship of this kind.
That is ten years, I understand, of the twenty-five years which this ship must survive in order to return the money. That is ten twenty-fifths, but in all fairness it must be pointed out that the loan from the Government is to be eighteen-thirtieths. In other words, the loan is not in relation to the risk as described by the Cunard Company itself. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us something more about the background of Sir John's remarks. I hope that he will do so because, as things stand, I cannot think of a less satisfactory history between Second

Reading and the present point in our proceedings.

Mr. Diamond: Has the hon. Member turned his attention to the logic of his own pretext, that the Government's interest would be two-fifths, and two-fifths of £30 million is £12 million, which is the figure in this Amendment?

Mr. J. Howard: We are considering, not an Amendment to reduce the amount of Government loan by £6 million, but whether or not we should proceed on this proposition at all. I take it that the effect of carrying the Amendment would be to wreck the whole transaction and to put once more into the Cunard's lap the decision on its finances and whether or not it should be prepared to expend the £12 million which it is already putting into the proposition.
This, therefore, is a wrecking Amendment and we must make clear that we are talking about this £6 million loan, not as a gift or a subsidy. We are to pay £12 million which the Cunard Company would put into the "Queen" proposition.
A great deal has been said about Cunard Eagle Airways. It appears from what has been said by hon. and right hon. Members opposite that they are concerned with freezing part of the resources of the Cunard Company so that it will not have funds available to venture into the Atlantic air passenger trade.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) referred to the fact that the Cunard Company, through Eagle Airlines, would be competing directly with B.O.A.C. He mentioned about £7½ million of traffic which might move from B.O.A.C. to this new airline company. That may or may not be the case. Only the future can tell whether that forecast is correct. It is clear that whatever company is allowed to compete with B.O.A.C, if any is allowed, B.O.A.C. will face competition from foreign airlines and this would be adding only marginally to that competition.
4.45 p.m.
The two propositions are not connected. We have, on the one hand, the raising of finances for a new liner which is to cost £30 million and to have restricted use. We ought to get back to HANSARD for 1st June, 1960, col. 1440,


where my right hon. Friend summarised the Report of the Chandos Committee. In the first paragraph of the summary the following words were used
We were asked to consider how the British express…
I underline the word "express"—
passenger service across the North Atlantic could best be maintained.
Those were the terms of reference of the Committee. In paragraph 2, the Committee went on to say:
We have consulted shipowners and other interests, as well as Cunard themselves. We have examined several different types and sizes of ships and also various types and patterns of service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1960; Vol. 624, c. 1440.]
It went on to say that this particular type of ship is the only one which could fulfil the needs of an express passenger service.
If we were not talking now about an express passenger service, there would be a great deal in what the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) said. He was talking about the ship which would travel at 24 knots. It would be quite impossible to run an express service with a ship of that speed. At present, any number of passenger ships are sailing from Liverpool and plying across the Atlantic, ships of the Cunard and other companies, with passengers who wish to travel at a slower rate. They can use Liverpool, indeed they also use Southampton, but we are considering now whether we can remain in the North Atlantic express passenger trade.
A feature of that trade is that a ship must be able to cross the Atlantic in five days so as to allow for a weekly sailing, that is to say, every week-end at sea and a day at each end to take on and discharge passengers. To cross in five days, the ship must be capable of 29½ or 30 knots. Therefore, a ship with a speed of 24 knots, the class mentioned by the hon. Member, cannot be considered in the context of this Bill.

Mr. Diamond: I am interested in what the hon. Member is saying. My knowledge is not sufficient to say whether 24 knots would be enough to do the return journey in a week, but this journey has to be done in the winter period. If one is interested in speed, one goes by air.

Mr. Howard: I was talking of the express passenger service. Let the Committee be under no misapprehension that

hon. Members opposite wish to wreck the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: No.

Mr. Howard: Of course they do.

Mr. E. G. Willis: On a point of order, Sir Harry. If this were a wrecking Amendment, would it have been called?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): It is certainly not for the Chair to decide what intentions hon. Members have in putting down Amendments, but it is for the Chair to decide whether an Amendment is in order, and this Amendment is in order.

Mr. Diamond: This is the second time that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) has used the term "wrecking Amendment". If £6 million less is put in by the Government, £6 million more will have to be put in by the Cunard. That is not wrecking. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Howard: I thought that I had made it clear at the outset of my remarks that if at this stage the Cunard Company were asked to put up another £6 million—after the negotiations that the Government have concluded, details of which are enshrined in the documents accompanying the Bill—valuable time would be lost. It is doubtful whether the Cunard Company would be prepared to commit another £6 million to this project. I use the word "commit", because it has been used constantly in connection with the Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Cunard Company has this amount? That is admitted. It is contained in the company's balance sheet and it has been admitted by witnesses who appeared before the recent air inquiry. The company has the money all right, and the only point is that the £6 million which it could provide—so that the Government need not provide this £18 million, but only £12 million—would not go to Eagle Airways. Is it not possible for Eagle Airways to raise £6 million in the market at 6¾ per cent. or 8 per cent.? If it is such a sound project, surely the money could be obtained. Why ask the Government to provide it?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for leading me to my next and important point. I have before me the balance sheet to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. In this balance sheet of the Cunard Steam-Ship Company I cannot see another £6 million among its assets.

Mr. Shinwell: I said £16 million.

Mr. Howard: I am talking about £6 million, and I hope that at least the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to come to the end of a sentence concerning the balance sheet. The Cunard Company in its balance sheet of 31st December, 1960—and this is the consolidated balance sheet containing the whole of the assets of the Cunard Group—has investments totalling just over £14 million, and roughly £3 million in cash, the bulk of which, presumably, is cash required for the working of the company.
The point at issue today is that the right hon. Gentleman says that if the Cunard Company were compelled to put another £6 million into this project, the company would not have enough money available for its air project. But the Cunard Company, from its balance sheet, could not put another £6 million into the project. That is the point. It may be suggested that it could do so, perhaps by squeezing its resources, but we are here discussing two different problems. The Cunard Company, in order to finance the ship, would have to raise a mortgage on a ship with a life of 25 to 30 years. Over that period the company would have to get back the whole of the sum advanced by mortgage. In the case of aircraft, on the other hand—for instance, Boeing 707's, and I believe that two of them are concerned—about £6 million is involved and the bulk of that money could be raised by mortgaging the aircraft—a much more realisable asset than a Cunarder.
Therefore, the Cunard Company would be able to face its aircraft commitments and raise £6 million by purchasing two readily saleable assets which would earn the whole of their depreciation in probably 5 to 8 years, as compared with 25 to 30 years in the case of the project under discussion.

Mr. Shinwell: May I once more put the point I have made on several occasions? This is a point which appears

in the report of the inquiry. When Sir John was asked whether money was available, he said that there was no inability to find more than £12 million, and he added:
It should be 'unwillingness'. The amount to be found was not the crucial point: it was the risk element and the profit element of any unit which had to last 25 years and cost £30 million.
In other words, the company has the money but is unable to accept the risk—so it has placed the risk on the Government. The Government are saddled with the risk. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to read the document which I have here, I will gladly give it to him.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's offer. The word "unwillingness" has cropped up in the context of the Cunard Company being unwilling to put more than £12 million into the proposition. I have, pointed out that in the balance sheet there is a little more than £12 million. Hon. Members are today talking about another £6 million, or perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is talking about the total of £30 million? That is a totally different matter—a proposition costing £30 million for a new ship as against a proposition for aircraft—which are readily saleable assets—costing about £6 million. This distinction must be clearly drawn, and I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. John Rankin: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, can he say what cash offer was made by the Cunard Company for the takeover of Eagle Airways?

Mr. Howard: I certainly cannot say and I certainly shall not ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to answer that question. No doubt the figure is available in the financial columns of the Press. But we are not considering that matter at the moment. We are considering a £6 million mortgage on aircraft, as against £30 million for a new ship.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Howard: I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had made it clear that the financing of these two propositions is distinct and separate.
The Cunard Company has been prepared to put up £12 million. Whether or not it is willing or able to contribute more is beside the point, because the whole of the negotiations, presumably involving hard bargaining, ended in the terms of the recommendations in the Paper accompanying the Bill. I therefore urge hon. Members to consider whether or not we require an express passenger service across the Atlantic. I believe that we do, and I therefore hope that hon. Members will vote against the Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard), has said that the question whether the Cunard Company could find the whole of the money, or alternatively, could find the extra £6 million which is involved in the Amendment, is beside the point. It may be beside the point now, but it most certainly was not beside the point during the Second Reading debate. As I remember it, that was the case which the Government were making, and the Minister of Transport said at the commencement of his Second Reading speech:
The story started two or three years ago, when Cunard told the Government that it could not find enough capital, either from its own resources or by borrowing on the market, to replace the 'Queen Mary' by a ship of the same class at current shipbuilding prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1961; Vol. 693, c. 914.]
The hon. Member for Test may be perfectly right in saying that, on the information which we now have, the ability of the Cunard Company to finance it itself is not the point. I think he is right. I think that we have the evidence of the most authoritative and decisive witness to show that he is right, namely. Sir John Brocklebank. But what the hon. Member for Test does not realise is that by saying that, and saying it correctly, he has completely cut the ground from under the feet of the Minister of Transport—unless the Minister is going to invite the Committee today to abide by the decision made during the Second Reading of the Bill—for reasons not merely different from the reasons he then advanced, but for reasons diametrically opposed to those reasons.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's sincerity. I make no criticism of it and no attack on it. Why should I? We have ample authority for the proposition that where

a man's treasure is there will his heart be also. There is, therefore, no reason to doubt his complete sincerity in advancing this proposition to the Committee. Nevertheless, I venture to say to him that his speech was ill-advised and tactless in the extreme.

Mr. Burden: Was the hon. Gentleman here during the Second Reading of the Bill? My speech was purely factual and it was not made from a brief provided by the Cunard Company.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I have no intention of being diverted from the point that I was proposing to make. Whether I was here or not has nothing to do with the merits of my argument. If the hon. Gentleman will possess his soul in patience for a minute or two, he will see why.
In every other institution of government in this country except the House of Commons a person in the position of the hon. Gentleman would have been debarred by law from either speaking or—

Mr. Burden: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Sir Harry? Is it not a fact that, if an hon. Member has an interest in the subject under discussion, he should declare that interest, and there is no question of that being, in any way incorrect or proper?

The Temporary Chairman: Before I came into the Chair, I think that the Chairman of Ways and Means gave a Ruling on this matter. First, as I understand it, there is no rule against any hon. Member voting or speaking on any matter of public policy such as is contained in a public Bill, even when that hon. Member may benefit from the passing of the Bill by the House. Secondly, I understand that it is customary for an hon. Member to declare a personal interest in matters before the House, but I gather that the hon. Gentleman did that before I came into the Chair. That also-applies when the House is in Committee. However, it is not for the Chair to enforce these rules. Finally, I understand that it is out of order for an hon. Member to impute dishonourable motives to another hon. Member. The only way in which that can be done is to table a substantive Motion. I gather


that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not trying to do that.

Mr. Silverman: This is not in dispute. Those of us who have been Members of the House of Commons for a long time know that an hon. Member, whatever his interest, is entitled to speak and to vote so long as he declares his interest in the matter under consideration. Even that is not a necessity but merely a custom. I have not accused the hon. Gentleman of doing anything wrong. I have doubted the wisdom of what he is doing and his tact in doing it. I am entitled to do this and, subject to your correction, Sir Harry, I shall continue to do it.
What I was dealing with was not what would be proper and right in this Committee but what would be proper and right in any other institution in this country under laws passed by Parliament in a comparable situation. If this had happened in the London County Council, in an urban district council, in a rural council—

Mr. Diamond: Or in Gillingham.

Mr. Silverman: —or in the hon. Gentleman's local authority, he would have been debarred by law from taking part in the debate and from voting, whatever his interest. I am not saying that that ruling is applicable to Members of the House of Commons. Of course it is not. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly within his rights in speaking on the the Second Reading and, if there had been a vote, in voting. What I am saying to him, in all friendliness and with great respect, is that he would have been wiser not to exercise his right. That is the point that I am making. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's rights may be, it is infinitely better in itself and infinitely more conducive to support of the Government's case if arguments in favour of a proposition which cannot fail to be a financial advantage to an hon. Member are left to other hon. Members.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about this, and I think that he ought to be put right and that the correction should be put on the record. If the Bill goes through, a company will be formed in which I shall certainly have neither a directorship nor any financial

benefit. Equally, I have no financial benefit or interest in the Cunard Steam-Ship Company.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he has a financial interest in the proposition or not. He ought to know that. As far as I know, no other hon. Member knows it. If he is now saying, in contradiction of what he has said on every other occasion, that he has no interest in the matter, then I unreservedly withdraw every word that I have said. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will do the same. If, on the other hand, he has a financial interest, then with all respect—

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Silverman: I will not give way. Let me finish my sentence and then the hon. Gentleman can put his foot in it as much as he likes. If, on the other hand, he has a financial interest in the matter, then again I say to him that he would have been much wiser to keep out of it. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, I will give way.

Mr. Burden: On every occasion possible when this matter has been debated, and when the hon. Gentleman has not been present, I have made it clear that I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in the Cunard Steam-Ship Company or in any company which may arise out of this Bill, but that I was a director of Eagle Airways before it became a company owned by the Cunard Steam-Ship Company. I still am a director, on exactly the same terms as I was before Cunard took over.

Mr. Silverman: In that case, the hon. Gentleman's speech was even more ill-advised and stupid than we thought it was. He has allowed the Second Reading and the debate on this Amendment to proceed on the basis that he has an interest in the matter which he himself declared. If he had not declared it, this debate would not have arisen. On either proposition, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is convicted out of his own mouth of having made a speech which, if he had stopped to consider it, he would not have made.

Mr. P. Williams: Now let us get back to Cunard.

Mr. Silverman: Let us get back to Cunard. I take it that the hon. Member for Gillingham has no further interest in the matter.
The Minister is now under a very clear duty to tell the Committee why he resists the Amendment, if that is the case. Of course, there is one explanation of the Government's attitude to this matter which has nothing to do with its merits, with the financial argument or with the Amendment. I understand that they made a pledge about this in the General Election and that they are so obstinately insistent on carrying it through, in spite of the almost unanimous opposition of both sides of the Committee, because they wish to fulfil their pledges to the electorate.
What is the reason for this belated sensitivity concerning election pledges? Since the Government were elected, they have done a great many things which they were not pledged to do and a number of things which they were pledged not to do. What is the overriding sanctity of this particular incidental pledge? If this is what is inhibiting the Minister of Transport from giving effect to what is the plain logic of the facts, then I think that he will not be adding to the Government's perfidy very much if he renounces this pledge as the Government have renounced so many other pledges which they made in the same election. If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that he need not be so punctilious or sanctimonious about this matter, let him come to the facts.

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend has used the word "punctilious" about the Government carrying out their election pledges. He will remember that the election pledge was to put up two "Queens". It now turns out that the aim of the Government is to put up one "Queen" only. What they are trying to do is to honour one half of their pledge in a typical Tory fashion.

Mr. Mellish: May I further complicate the matter? That pledge was given by the Prime Minister, and it was clearly understood that the work would be given to Scotland, yet the Minister of Transport has not said that Scotland will build even half of this pledge.

Mr. Silverman: Both of my hon. Friends are a little hard on the Minister. If we have reached the stage when this Government are ready to fulfil 50 per cent. of their pledges, it is an enormous improvement on their record so far. Even if the 50 per cent. is subject to the limitation about which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has reminded me, perhaps we can give them that by way of discount.
I now turn to the merits of the proposition itself. No doubt a case—not a case which I should accept, but, nevertheless, an arguable, plausible case—can be made for this proposition on the basis that there ought to be such a ship, that the Cunard Company can build it as well or better than anybody else, and that the Cunard—[Interruption.]—if someone else could have it, I do not know why we are doing it this way. Let us assume that this is the best way of doing a thing that it is right to do, which presumably is the Government's case. There is a case for doing it out of public money only if it cannot be done without public money. I do not advance this as a general proposition, because I should like to see the State taking full ownership and control of all services of this kind. I should like to see it providing all the capital, owning all the assets, controlling the management and, in the name and interests of the nation, owning all the proceeds.
However, the Government do not accept that. They hold another view. They hold a view about an occasional and spasmodic partnership with private industry so that essential things can be done by private industry, but where there are financial inhibitions or burdens which it would be unfair to place on private enterprise, because it has not the resources and cannot raise them in the open market, then the Government, in the interests of the community, are entitled to come to its aid and to give it subsidies and lend it money at special rates. That is the Government's case, as I understand it. I concede that it is an arguable case if the facts are right. When the right hon. Gentleman moved the Second Reading, he recommended the Bill, with the £18 million, to the House on that very ground.

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps the only ground.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I have tried to state fairly—I believe that I have succeeded—the Government's case for the Bill on Second Reading. What I am saying is that, after Sir John Brocklebank's evidence in the other matter, the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the facts on which he based his argument are not facts at all. There is no such inability. Unless the Minister is to persuade the Cunard Company that it has less resources than the Chairman says it has, the whole basis of his case has gone.
The Amendment does not ask him to withdraw the whole of the loan. It gives the Cunard Company the benefit of any doubt there might be about 100 per cent., but it accepts Sir John Brocklebank's evidence and, on the basis of his evidence—or, rather, on the basis of half the facts disclosed by his evidence—£6 million instead of £12 million—it is said that it is now established that the need that the Government have set out to satisfy is not a need for £18 million but a need, at the best, for not more than £12 million. If Sir John Brocklebank's evidence does not mean that, it is extremely difficult to know what it does mean.
I should like to know from the Minister whether he accepts Sir John Brocklebank's evidence as given at that inquiry. If the answer is "No," we should adjourn this debate altogether and have another inquiry to see what the Cunard resources really are—

Mr. Diamond: And not publish the result.

Mr. Silverman: I should like the result to be published, because it is on the basis of those facts that we are being invited to adopt this—

Mr. Diamond: If my hon. Friend will permit me, we are being asked to accept the Bill on the basis of the Chandos Report, and we have not got that Report.

Mr. Silverman: I know that we have not got it. A great many people seem to know what is in the Report, but I have not yet met anyone who claims to have seen it.
It is for that reason that I say that if the Minister of Transport is not prepared to accept the evidence of the chairman

of the Cunard Company as to what the financial resources of that company are, if he is satisfied that its resources are much less than the company says they are—

Mr. Mellish: We keep talking about the Chandos Committee, but we do not know about the evidence given to it. It has never been published. Nevertheless, the Committee's main conclusions were published, and the Committee itself said that the Cunard Company had said that it had available only £12 million from its own resources. It was on the basis of what the Cunard Company told the Committee that the Committee made recommendations which we now know not to be accurate.

Mr. Silverman: This part of the discussion may, in a sense, be academic, because I do not expect the Minister of Transport to answer in the negative the question I have asked of him. I do not think that at the end of this debate we will be told that when Sir John Brocklebank says that his company is able to provide the money but is unwilling to do so, the Minister does not believe him. For that reason I believe that the right hon. Gentleman must, if he ventures to answer the question at all, answer it in the affirmative—say that he does believe what Sir John Brocklebank said.
On the other hand, if he believes what Sir John Brocklebank said, what possible reason can there be for rejecting this Amendment which, as I have just been reminded, was based precisely on the acceptance of Sir John Brocklebank's evidence? If the Minister persists in rejecting the Amendment and forcing the extra £6 million down the throat of the Cunard Company, in the teeth of its own assurance that it does not need it and can itself provide the money, this is really to make a mockery of the whole of these proceedings and of the Bill itself.
And this from a Government who have always made one of their principal interests the protection of the taxpayer and the public from the wastage of public money. During the election they made a violent, extravagant, inflated and thoroughly unfair attack on my right hon. Friends as being wasters; the people who poured public money down the drain, the people who spent it without care or reckoning, the people who threw it away.
All right—we threw it away on education, we threw it away on health, we threw it away on housing, and we threw it away on a great many other things where it was obviously necessary that something should be done. And if the right hon. Gentleman rejects this Amendment he will be throwing public money away on the Cunard Company in the teeth of its own evidence that it does not require the money. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have shortened the debate long ago by saying that he accepted the Amendment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): It might be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Harry, if I were to intervene now. There will be plenty of time for those right hon. and hon. Members who wish to intervene later—

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Sir Harry. The Parliamentary Secretary has just made a declaration that we have plenty of time. Does he mean that? Do the Government mean that?

The Temporary Chairman: I thought that the hon. Member was rising on a point of order but I understand him now to be addressing a question to the hon. and gallant Member. If it is a point of order, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address it to me; if it is not, perhaps he will seek to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry. Sir Harry. I understand that this part of our business is timed to stop at 7 o'clock. The Parliamentary Secretary has just said that we have plenty of time. Could we have that statement explained? Is it the Government's intention to provide that time?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order but, certainly, business will be interrupted at 7 o'clock by Private Business.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is not for me to forecast the duration of these proceedings. The hope was certainly expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we might have the Bill by 7 o'clock but, at the present rate of progress, it looks rather unlikely that we shall.
Perhaps you will allow me, Sir Harry, to go a little outside the rules of order so that I may thank hon. Members on both sides for their kind expressions of good will on my appointment during the Second Reading debate. I had to sit in silence then, but I shall do my best to deserve their confidence, although I fear that I shall dissipate it all before the afternoon gets much later.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), among three reasons that he had advanced in support of the Amendment, put forward one in a form slightly different from any advanced by any other hon. Gentlemen who have supported the Amendment. He said that it would compel the Cunard to build a smaller ship, which he thought would be adequate. To a large extent, that has been answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard), and all I would add to the point about the speed of the big ship on the North Atlantic express service is that the essence of the service has always been accepted to be the fact that it is an all-the-year-round service. It may be true that one line thinks it folly to run a service in the winter, but that has not been the view of the Cunard line, or that of the American line that operates the "United States" or of the Compagnie Générate Transatlantique in regard to the "France".
As the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said in opening, this Amendment would reduce from £18 million to £12 million the total advances that the Minister is empowered under the Bill to make to the company. In so doing, of course, it would conflict with one of the basic recommendations of the Chandos Committee—and I may say that those recommendations have been published in HANSARD—and would almost certainly make the whole object of the Bill unattainable. The agreement reached with the Cunard Company is clearly set out in the White Paper, and the basis of that agreement would be destroyed by making this big fall in the level of the loan. To that extent I have some sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test that if the Amendment were carried it would, in practice, wreck the Bill.
The point behind the Amendment, as has been made very clear, is that the


Cunard Company, the steamship company, ought to add to its £12 million contribution towards the "Q.3"—if I may so call her—the capital which Cunard Eagle intends to find for the purchase of Boeing aircraft. That is really the suggestion that has been made throughout the debate. I may say, in passing, that it has been explained, both on Second Reading and in the White Paper that the company is not prepared to risk, if we may call it that, more than £12 million of its shareholders' money on this project—

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If I ay complete this argument, I shall be much obliged. I hope to answer all the hon. Gentleman's points, but this is an intricate subject and, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I would rather go through it in my own way. I shall give way in due course.
Even if the company wanted to do more, it could find the additional money only by mortgaging the other assets of the group. That, of course, would increase its risk to what it has regarded as an unacceptable degree. On the other hand, the capital required for the Boeings, which are altogether a different venture, can be raised without resort to this sort of means.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to the Government's opinion that the "Q3" venture was commercially justifiable. That is so, but I put it to him that it is not quite the same thing for something to be commercially justifiable and to be so commercially attractive as to attract millions of pounds from the private money market. I do not know, but I imagine that the £6 million required for the aircraft will have to be raised on that market.
Perhaps I may be permitted to give the Committee some figures concerning the capital investment position of the Cunard Steamship group which show how the opinion was reached that £12 million was a reasonable amount for the company to put up—

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the American aircraft industry today is prepared to advance up to 80 per cent. in loan form, over a good

many years, unfortunately against our own industry? That is the position.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That strengthens the point I made; the comparative ease of raising money for the aircraft as compared with the ship.
The Cunard Company has made available to my right hon. Friend a number of figures that I think are pertinent to this debate, and I should like to quote them. First of all, purely as a matter of interest, during the fifteen years that have elapsed since the war the total expenditure on new tonnage by the group has been nearly £80 million. On top of that, it has spent just over £6 million of capital expenditure in modernising and improving its existing ships. It has obtained about £3½ million by the sale of old ships. That means that the company has raised some £83 million of which £38 million were raised and provided by the company itself. I do not say that the company is unique in that, but I thought that I would try to put the matter in perspective for the Committee.
The company estimates that to maintain its fleet over the next ten years—including the £12 million which it is proposing to put into the "Q3"—it will require £61 million; £15 million for Brocklebank, £24 million for the Port Line, and £22 million for the Cunard Line.
The resources to which it looks for providing that money are, first of all, the group investment—to which reference has already been made—of £14 million, to which it adds the depreciation that will be suitable during the next ten years—estimated at £40 million—to which it adds a further £2 million that it expects to raise from scrapping old ships. That leaves a balance of £5 million that will have to be found by setting aside profits in excess of depreciation to raise the £12 million. All that, of course, is without making any provision at all for the replacement of the "Queen Elizabeth".

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary be frank with the Committee and tell it what discussions have taken place between the Cunard group and the Government about the purchase of the Boeings, for these two reasons? The hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about


the attractiveness of the proposition—the "Q.3"—but the attractiveness of this proposition by itself is affected by the purchase of two Boeings for the trans-Atlantic route by Cunard Eagle. The attractiveness of the "Q.3" is obviously affected by that.
The other reason is this. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about the resources of this group, but he says nothing at all about the Boeings. We want to know what resources were used for the purchase of these Boeings. The company purchased the Boeings without waiting for the licence. One wants to know what resources were used for the Boeings. Surely this is a fair and proper question to put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This is the fundamental point of difference between the two sides of the Committee. We do not accept that there is this close connection between the two matters. There have, in fact, been no discussions, as far as I know, between the Government and the airline with regard to the purchase of the Boeings. If the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that they have already been purchased, possibly the explanation can be found in what my hon. Friend said about the very generous credit terms advanced.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman telling the Committee—he ought to be perfectly clear upon this point—that the Cunard Company does not own Eagle Airways? The holdings and also the aviation company are now part and parcel of the Cunard Company.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I did not say anything about that at all. I said that this problem is a separate problem and that we regard it as such. Of course, that point of view accounts for the large number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), who drew attention to the apparent discrepancy between the evidence as reported in The Times by Sir John Brocklebank with regard to the alleged unwillingness as opposed to inability to raise more than £12 million. I would suggest that the conflict between these two statements—

Mr. S. Silverman: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman—

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I must be allowed to go on.

Mr. Silverman: rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): The hon. Member must resume his seat if the Minister does not give way.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think that I have been very good about giving way, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen—

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave way on other points.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not, in effect, dispute my Rulings from a sedentary position after they have been given.

Mr. Silverman: I think that I have been treated with discourtesy.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If I may be allowed to proceed with this rather complicated matter, I would point out that there is, of course, no doubt that the Cunard Company could have raised more than the £12 million from its own resources had it been prepared to use money set aside for the replacement of other units in the fleet. Obviously, I suppose, a good deal more still could have been raised from the market if the company had been prepared to pledge all its North Atlantic assets.

Mr. Shinwell: Where did the company say that?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am giving my opinion to the right hon. Gentleman. He can take it or not as he likes.
The company could have raised even more, I suppose, if it had been prepared to pledge the assets of the subsidiary companies of the group. But £12 million was all that the company had available from its resources for this enterprise, taking into account the total funds at its disposal, its replacement


commitments on the rest of its fleet and its assessment of the risks and potential profits of the enterprise. On the advice of the Chandos Committee, the Government accepted that £12 million was as much as the company could reasonably be asked to contribute towards the capital cost of replacing the "Queen Mary".

Mr. S. Silverman: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. I am sorry if I was rude; I did not intend to be. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must realise that the explanation which he is now giving is not the explanation which the Minister of Transport gave on Second Reading. Not a word of this was in the Minister's speech. Are we not entitled to know on what authority, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right, the Minister of Transport made that speech?

Mr. Strauss: May I amplify the question which my hon. Friend has put? The Parliamentary Secretary told us that it might have been possible for the Cunard Company to raise additional money if it had mortgaged its fleet and if it had used money which it wanted for other purposes. But the Minister of Transport told us that the company could not. In his speech the Minister said:
Therefore, the previous Administration made two decisions. First, that this unique British service should not be allowed to die out because Cunard could not itself raise all the capital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1961; Vol. 639, c. 915.]
We were all impressed by that and believed that the Minister meant what he said, that it was impossible for the company to do so. Now we are told a quite different story, that it could have done so if it had wanted to. Which is the true story?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I see no conflict between the two statements at all. The question is what the company could have done with normal prudence towards its shareholders, to whom it has a responsibility, the rest of the fleet, its employees and ail the rest. I submit to the Committee that this question has nothing whatever to do with whether the company can or cannot raise the money with which to buy the aircraft. There really is no connection at all between the Boeings and

the new "Queen". It has already been pointed out that the Boeings earn their depreciation in five years whereas it takes a ship some twenty-five years before it can repay its capital cost. What is more—this point was made by one of my hon. Friends—Boeing aircraft could, if necessary, be used on other routes. That means that they can, if necessary, be sold at any time at probably very little less than their written down value. In short, the investing of £6 million with which to buy two Boeings is a wholly different proposition from investing £30 million in a new Queen.

Mr. Diamond: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me—

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would ask, if I may, to be allowed to finish. I have given way a great deal, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way to him now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The right hon. Member for—

Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order. Although I do not appreciate the Government case on this matter I should like to be allowed to hear it. It would help if there were not so many interruptions by hon. Members while sitting down. Is there no way, Mr. MacPherson, in which critics on this side of the Committee can hear the Government case?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that there is some substance in the point, but I did not think that the situation was bad enough for me to intervene.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, first, to reply to one or two points which he himself made. He said that he was going to put a fundamental question to the Committee. He did not put it immediately because there was a slight argument about the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), but, later, the right hon. Gentleman put what, I think, was the fundamental question that he had in mind. He asked why we were not helping other shipping lines as well. The short answer to that question is because at the present moment none of them is in a similar position.

Mr. Willey: What does that mean?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It means that there is no other service at the moment which is faced with such tremendous subsidised competition.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) made a great point about the risk to which public money was being put. I concede at once that some degree of risk is involved in any investment. In this case Government help is considered to be needed. May I have the attention of the hon. Member for Cardiff South-East (Mr. Callaghan)?

Mr. Callaghan: I apologise to the Minister. I did not intend him to hear my remarks. As apparently he heard them, let me repeat that I have never heard the case against building the new "Q.3" put more strongly than he is putting it now.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That is a matter of opinion.
Some degree of risk is involved. That is inevitable in any investment. I am pointing out that the Government are seeking by their help to reduce that risk by means of a loan and a small grant. The position in this respect is exactly similar to that in 1934 when precisely the same fears were expressed about the profitability of the "Queen Mary". In that respect the position is identical. The same fears were expressed, but the venture proved a success.
The alternative to giving this help now, which was outlined on Second Reading and which I cannot repeat and remain in order, is to let this service go by default. That is the alternative which confronts the Committee, and it is because we do not wish to let the service go by default that I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: I wish it clearly to be understood that my intervention should by no means curtail the debate on this Amendment. I am glad that the Patronage Secretary has been here for some time, because he now knows that there are very strong feelings on the subject. Indeed, I doubt whether we shall conclude the debate on the first Amendment by 7 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: Why?

Mr. Mellish: I said that we should not finish it by 7 p.m. I wish my hon. Friend would listen.

Mr. Rankin: I am listening to the best of my ability. Will my hon. Friend please speak up so that we can hear him.

Mr. Mellish: I cannot speak Scots and Cockney at the same time, although I will do my best.
Although we have heard a part-reply from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, it is obvious that the debate will demand a much fuller explanation from the Minister of Transport himself, because so many of our troubles this afternoon arise from his Second Reading speech.
In many ways we are very sorry for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. His is a new appointment, and it was his maiden speech. I think that he did it extremely well, but he had a rotten case. He did the best that he could. I feel very sorry for him. His task is to look after the shipping industry of Britain, and if this is the way in which he will look after it, then I am afraid for the future. All the soft words which he uses will not avail if he is trying to defend the indefensible. I tell him at once that he will find a great many enemies where he used to have friends.
What is the issue involved? It is based on the Report made by the Chandos Committee. I will quote from the only Report which is available to us from the Committee which gives any hint or guide. If hon. Members refer to HANSARD of 1st May, 1961, when the main recommendations of the Chandos Committee were published, they will find it made clear that the Committee consulted many shipowners and other interests as well as the Cunard Company. We have reason to believe that those other shipowners told the Chandos Committee that this whole venture was bad from the word "go". Is it true that the Committee was advised that it was not right to go on with it? Was not the Chandos Committee told that this would be money wasted but because of the terms of reference applied by the Government the Chandos Committee had no alternative but to come to the sort of arrangement which we are discussing today?

Sir James Henderson-Stewart: Where is the evidence for that?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member has been out of office for some time. Let him read it and find out the best he can from the recommendations.
Other shipowners regarded this line as very suspect economically. Many of us hold the view—I certainly hold it—that the only reason that the Bill was introduced was one of prestige, and that that is why we are asked to find millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. Some hon. Members are interested because they hope that this will bring work to certain shipyards, but if money is to be found for the shipyards, this is not the way to find it. There are many other ways. If millions of pounds of public money are to be found, it should not be for building a ship for prestige reasons. Certainly, the taxpayers, and, I think, the Government, would like to feel that the money was spent wisely and well.

Mr. J. Howard: rose—

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member is from Southampton, is he not?

Mr. Howard: I have the privilege of representing part of Southampton, and I have a constituency interest. But I also have an interest because, in common with many other people, I wish to see Britain maintain her position in the North Atlantic trade. Is the hon. Member saying that we should not remain in the express passenger trade in the North Atlantic? Do he and his party wish to throw out the Bill? Will he make it clear at this juncture, because it will save a lot of trouble?

Mr. Mellish: I will make it clear. I think that we should remain in the North Atlantic trade but not in a ship of this size or of this class. I believe that we could get far better value for money, although at least the hon. Member is honest about it; understandably, he wants a "Queen Mary" because it would use Southampton, and Southampton alone, and his constituency would do a great deal of business out of embarkation and disembarkation. I understand that. But I do not see why the rest of the taxpayers should subsidise Southampton alone, nor do I see why they should help to swell the profits of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden).

Mr. Howard: It is not a question of subsidising my profits or the profits of the town. The port of Southampton will be used whichever ship is built which wishes to sail across the Atlantic in five days. The whole point is whether we wish to remain in the express passenger trade.

Mr. Mellish: My answer is, "Yes, we do". The Southampton dockers vote labour and are members of my union, and I hasten to put it on record that I think that Southampton is a very fine port and that its people are very fine people.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend is on a winner.

Mr. Mellish: I hope that I can do it on the Derby tomorrow.
The second point which I want to make is that the only evidence available from the Chandos Committee is that in which the Committee says that the Cunard Company would subscribe £12 million of equity capital and that it was the only money which the Committee had available for this purpose. This is the whole of our argument. When we had the debate on Second Reading this was the Minister's case, and that is why we are determined that later in the debate he should answer some of the pertinent questions which have been put by my hon. and right hon. Friends.

Mr. Howard: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the Committee. Is he quoting from column 1441 of HANSARD of 1st June, 1960?

Mr. Callaghan: It is column 914 of 1st May, 1961.

Mr. Mellish: My "Parliamentary Private Secretary" informs me that it is column 914. The Minister made it perfectly clear that Cunard could not find enough capital either from the Company's own resources or from borrowing on the market.

Mr. Howard: I thought that the hon. Member was quoting from the report in HANSARD on the findings of the Chandos Committee. If he quotes correctly he will see that it says that Cunard had
available only £12 million from their own resources to invest in the project.

Mr. Mellish: I do not think that I shall give way to the hon. Member again,


because it will not be worth while. If he intends to quote the Minister of Transport he is in the same difficulty as myself. I have followed the Minister of Transport in many debates. He is a very wily customer. I am glad that in the Bill we did not give the project to Marples-Ridgeway for that firm to build. We might well have had that.
It is difficult to follow the Minister's argument. The point is that we were led to believe that this Government subsidy was inevitable because Cunard, who, apparently, were the only people who could possibly build this big ship, could not themselves find the resources. That was the main burden of the Government's case. Hon. Members opposite bitterly opposed this ship being built at all, or being built by Cunard. Some of them opposed the Cunard Company being given the job. They said that there were various reasons why the ship should not be built.
Our problem on this side of the Committee has always been that we did not want it to go from the House to the country that we were against Government money being spent on anything in the shipbuilding industry. I should make it clear that on re-examination I, for one, believe that in many ways the Bill should be opposed totally. I believe it to be wrong to spend the money on a ship of this kind, which, in my view, will not do for the nation all the great things which have been suggested for it and which, in the long term, will not bring all the work which this money could bring if it were spread over.
We had a debate last Friday week on the economic plight of Northern Ireland. The attendance in the House was shameful. That debate told the saddest story which one could ever hear of the shipbuilding industry there. If it does not get an order soon it will have over 50 per cent. of the people out of work and without a hope of getting a job. The last thing we want to do is to convey the impression that we do not want money spent in the industry. But we want it spent wisely and well.
If this liner is given not to Northern Ireland, but in such a way as to satisfy my hon. Friends from Scotland, who fight for their interests as well as anyone in the House, then it will be a disaster for such places as Northern Ireland,

because there is nothing to follow it. There is no plan. There is just one ship. There is one prestige ship to be built because the Prime Minister gave a promise during the General Election. We believe that the Cunard Company could find this money.

The Temporary Chairman: Order.

Mr. Mellish: I am coming to the Amendment.
We believe that the Cunard Company can find this money, and that is why we have moved the Amendment. If hon. Members opposite object to the ship being built at all or if they think that the Cunard Company should not build it, they should come into the Lobby with us. On the last occasion we heard speeches from them which were clearly opposed to the Bill. There was no Division on that occasion. They had no opportunity to challenge the Bill.

Mr. John Rodgers: Why did not hon. Members opposite divide the House?

Mr. Mellish: I gave the reasons earlier. This time we shall divide the Committee unless we have an assurance that the Amendment will be accepted. I hope that all those who spoke against the Bill will be in the Lobby with us because the only test of sincerity is where they vote at the end of the day.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Marples.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Marples: I thought that it might be convenient for the Committee if I gave my views now, but I am prepared to speak later if that meets the wishes of the Committee.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. We have had two Front Bench speeches in succession, and this would make a third. We therefore wonder whether the Minister intends to conclude the debate. He—not the Chair—may have made arrangements with the Patronage Secretary for the Closure to be moved afterwards. I should like to know from him—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member may not learn anything from the Minister on a point of order. Before I called the Minister I was on the point of calling another back bench Member. If the Minister does not intend to continue at this stage, I will call Sir John Barlow.

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) will permit me, I should like to ask the Minister a question. If the Minister speaks next, is it then his intention to call for an end to the debate, or will it be allowed to continue after we have heard his arguments, so that we can discuss it a little more?

Sir John Barlow: I know that the occupants of the Chair have been indulgent and have allowed the debate on the Amendment to go rather wide. I will try to be brief, because I know that you wish to draw this discussion to a close—

Mr. Willey: On a point of order. On what authority does the hon. Member say that it is your intention shortly to bring the debate to a close, Mr. MacPherson? Our understanding is that the debate will continue for some time.

The Temporary Chairman: There is no substantial point of order there. However, to clear up any misapprehension, I have no such intention.

Sir J. Barlow: It seems to me that the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the building of this Cunarder. That is the object of the Opposition. A great deal has been said about the declaring of interests and I hasten to declare my minute interest in shipping. I have used ships for travelling and considerably for freight for a great many years, and in my very young days I was a skilled riveter and caulker in a shipyard.
There are two vital questions to be faced. They have both been mentioned in the debate. On this side of the Committee, there was the pledge given at the General Election that this ship should be built. I interpret this to mean that approximately this amount of money should be spent for the benefit of shipbuilding and of British shipping in

general. We know the difficulty of subsidised foreign shipping and the great problems which the shipowners have had to face during the last few years.
It may be slightly different from the actual promise given at the General Election, but I would think it is fair interpretation that the money could be much better used spread more widely over more shipyards and smaller ships, so that the whole of our shipping industry would benefit materially. For that reason, I do not feel bound by any election pledge.
The next question is whether the scheme is a sound commercial enterprise. My hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the problems and the reasons for building the new "Queen" were similar to those which existed thirty years ago, when the existing two ships were built. I question that. The conditions at that time were entirely different. We all remember only too well the great amount of unemployment which we wanted to reduce. Thirty years have passed. Things are very different today from what they were then. Nobody seriously foresaw the flying of the Atlantic by the vast number of present-day passengers. I do not think that on further reflection my hon. and gallant Friend would agree that conditions are similar today to when the "Q.1" and the "Q.2" were considered, thirty or thirty-five years ago.
In the whole of these discussions, far too little information has been given to us. I am critical of the method of the creation and the reporting, or non-reporting, of the Chandos Committee. We in the House of Commons have a great regard for Lord Chandos. Many of us knew him very well and had a great respect for his ability. The way in which that Committee was set up, however, the terms of reference which it was given, the members comprising the Committee and the absence of publication do not fill me with confidence.
6.0 p.m.
I also think that the need for this vast ship has not been substantiated. We are told that a 75,000-ton ship is required to ride three great Atlantic rollers and not to pitch or toss and roll at the same time. I cannot believe that that merit carries the same weight now


as it did thirty or forty years ago. I believe that smaller and fairly fast ships could do this work equally well. If we wish to spend £12 million or £18 million on helping shipping, we could usefully use it much better elsewhere.
I am glad to see that I am not alone in holding these views. In reading The Times today, I see that that newspaper states that
when the North Atlantic Shipping Bill—the legal instrument of this piece of Government folly—comes before the Committee of the whole House of Commons today it should be killed.
In the circumstances, I do not think that we are bound by our election pledge to spend the money on one ship and I do not think that anybody would criticise us for spending it in the way I have suggested. I do not believe that on Second Reading and today the Government have substantiated sound reasons for spending this money in the way in which they have proposed.

Mr. Rankin: Like many of his hon. Friends, the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) has come forward to criticise the Bill and, if I followed him correctly, to refuse it his support and to quote The Times of today, which suggests that the Bill should be killed and that now is the opportunity to do so.
As a Member representing one of the greatest shipbuilding areas of the United Kingdom, I gave my support to the Bill on Second Reading and I still stand by that support. If, however, the Minister, when he replies, tells us that he has heard sufficient from both sides of the Committee to convince him that there is a case for taking back the Bill, I shall support him, because consistently in the House of Commons I have for a long while advocated another policy. It is crudely put as "Scrap and build".
That is a policy which would make itself felt throughout the whole of the United Kingdom and be of assistance not only to the nation in the competitive sense in the express services of which we have heard so much, but also from the viewpoint of helping to solve unemployment. If we now get such a contrary proposal as suggested by the hon. Baronet, I shall consider it carefully.
The hon. Baronet referred to the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend the

Joint Parliamentary Secretary. With my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on his speech, which was made in difficult circumstances. It justified one point that we have been making. The hon. and gallant Gentleman supplied us with a great deal of statistics, which are difficult to follow "off the cuff". This justifies the claim that we have been making today that we should have had more information before the project was considered on Second Reading.

Mr. Shinwell: It was incorrect then.

Mr. Rankin: I shall not deal with that aspect at the moment—

Mr. Shinwell: There is no reason why the House of Commons should allow itself to be misled. We were told by hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard), that the only reserves of the Cunard shipping group were £14 million. We have also been told that, because of the group situation, it does not have sufficient money to replace its vessels. Let us get the facts as stated at the recent inquiry. What did Mr. Bamberg say in reply to Mr. Fisher? He agreed that £16 million in the Cunard Company's balance sheet was shown as reserves for capital ship replacement and general contingency reserves. As I pointed out on Second Reading, from the actual balance sheet, in addition to £16 million for capital ship replacement, the group had investments of £15 million. These are the facts and the Committee should know of them.

Mr. Rankin: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said, but I was not pursuing the question of the rectitude of the financial statistics which have been given to us. We are in Committee and I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will not allow the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to escape along the route that he sought.
I rather wanted to deal with another aspect of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, when he said that the Boeing purchase afforded us no link with Cunard. I dispute that completely. That is the point to which I was coming when my right hon. Friend the Member


for Easington intervened. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that there was no link between the Boeing purchases and the building of the new ship. I dispute that completely. I dispute, also, that the Amendment is a wrecking Amendment, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary described it. It is nothing of the kind. If there was £6 million to purchase Boeings, there was £6 million to make up the reduction which we propose today.
Further than that, however, there is the whole question of the link between Eagle Aircraft and Cunard. The paid fuglemen of the Eagle Aircraft Company, which is now non-existent, are fighting for the retention of the figure of £18 million because they want the £6 million for use against the nationalised British Overseas Airways Corporation. That is why I hope that hon. Members opposite who are taking, perhaps, a slightly different view on that aspect of our case will, nevertheless, following what they themselves have said about the Bill, come with us into the Division Lobby.
It should be noted that the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech on Second Reading, a speech which has aroused so much attention today, said that this story which has been unfolded today was not something new. He said it had been going on for two or three years. In other words, it was a fairly old story.
Within those two or three years, when the Cunard Company was more or less in touch with, if not approaching the Government to say, "We would like to build a ship of this quality but we have not the money. We must have help if we are to do it," we were told that other moves were going on, because no later than March, 1960, the Cunard Company intimated a desire to acquire a controlling interest in Eagle Airways and associated companies—just a year ago. So that, within the period of two or three years, Cunard was seeking to expand its interests and to take up the business of flying aircraft.
It was only on 22nd March last year that this was accomplished, and it is worth noting that at that point the sole shareholder and owner of Eagle Airways was Mr. Harold Bamberg. One individual was the shareholder. The same individual was the owner. I gather

from what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said earlier that he had been a director of Eagle Airways for some time. On 22nd March last year there was one owner and one director.

Mr. Shinwell: Ask him how long.

Mr. Rankin: We are in Committee and the hon. Member can still come in.
So the cash offer was made, but because this was a private company there was no knowledge of the value of its capital, but I am told that the value of the cash offer which was made by Cunard to get a 60 per cent. controlling interest in this aircraft company was not disclosed, and that is my reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton, Test, sitting next to the hon. Member for Gillingham. Well, this is a test, because I asked him earlier if he would tell the Committee how much Cunard offered for this interest in Eagle Airways, and his answer was that I could have got that from the Press; but it was not disclosed, and I challenge him now to deny that Cunard paid £1 million. While the company was starting to beg from the Government it paid Eagle Airways £1 million.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Who told the hon. Member that?

Mr. Rankin: Ah, I am making a challenge. I have it here in writing. We are now coming to get the figures which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test could not give us. He said it was in the Press. It was never published. It was never disclosed, to my knowledge.

Mr. J. Howard: We are confusing the figures enormously. It has been published. If the hon. Member will look at the balance sheet of Cunard—it is available at Somerset House, though I know that some hon. Members have difficulty in associating the figures—he will see aircraft in the balance sheet cost, less depreciation, £1,030,600.

Mr. Shinwell: That is not what Mr. Bamberg says. Mr. Bamberg was asked by Mr. Fisher:
Your company is standing behind the applicants in the purchase of Boeing aircraft at a price of £6 million. If you had not to account for that operation you would have had that money available for the replacement of ships?


Mr. Bamberg replied:
Those are the resources of Cunard either to provide the cash or by the way of raising finance to find the £6 million involved in this Boeing purchase.

Mr. Rankin: Yes. I think that I still have the eye of the Chair. I think that a little confusion is now emerging. I am dealing with the take-over price of Eagle Airways and my right hon. Friend is dealing with the Boeing purchase price. Add the two together, however, and there was £7 million lying around.
I am glad that I have energised the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, because when I asked him a little earlier in the afternoon what the figure was he did not know it. It is well to keep in close touch with the director of Eagle Airways beside him, who has obviously supplied him with the figure since I made my intervention.
6.15 p.m.
That was the position. There was plenty of money during the time when Cunard was saying to the "National Assistance Board", "We have only got millions here in reserve, not sufficient to deprive us of assistance from the national Exchequer." That was, I thought, not unfairly, the outcome, at least one of the results, of the Parliamentary Secretary's intervention.
Now I come to the main point.

Sir A. V. Harvey: What point?

Mr. Rankin: Mine is a many-pronged attack.
I come to the other point I was making, that there was no link. The aircraft hand of Cunard does not know what the shipping hand is doing. All that is nonsense because the capital is jointly held. The capital of the Cunard Steam-Ship Company Limited, which now owns all the shares of Cunard Eagle Airways (Holdings) Limited and Eagle Aviation Limited, is £15½ million. I hope that that corresponds with the balance sheet which is jointly held by the hon. Members for Gillingham and Southampton, Test.
I come now to the interlocking of the two directorates. There are not two separate directorates because Mr. Bamberg, the former sole owner of Eagle—and this business of the ownership in aircraft companies is a story which some day will be worth telling—

Mr. Diamond: Worth telling now.

Mr. Rankin: I am telling a little bit of it. This is another of my prongs. I could tell, but better not.
Mr. Bamberg is now the chairman of the board of directors of Eagle Airways. I shall read their names: Mr. H. R. Bamberg; Mr. M. A. Guinane—I hope that I shall have the assistance of the hon. Member for Gillingham in pronouncing it; Mr. N. A. Hill; Sir John M. Brocklebank, Bt., chairman of the Steamship Company; Mr. W. Donald—and I missed one, the name of Mr. F. F. A. Burden, M.P., who, I assume, is closely identified with the hon. Member for Gillingham; and the last named is Mr. R. H. Senior. I am not giving the others.
I am naming three particularly because the Cunard Company gave money to Eagle and then said—I am mentioning this now because I will come back to it later—"We have invested money in your project. We want representation on your board. We are going to carry on the two boards together." So there are not two boards; there is one interlocked board. Cunard Steamship Company and Cunard Eagle Airways are bound together and the hon. Member for Gillingham is a member of that board and is thus interested not only in aircraft, but also in the shipping sector of that business.
No one doubts—I think that no one can doubt now—that the money was there if Cunard had wanted to use it. It did not want to use it because it had a beneficent "nanny" and it had sufficient influence with that nanny to gain more sustenance. The company came to a conclusion and asked itself, "Why use more money when the public purse is there and the open hand is once again at the public Exchequer?" I think that the Cunard Company is getting enough if it gets £12 million and I shall vote for that when the time comes. I hope that I shall find with me in the Lobby the hon. Member for Gillingham and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.

Sir A. V. Harvey: When the Second Reading took place I was unhappy about the whole project of "Q.3", but, having given the matter further consideration, and with some reservations, I think that the country wants the "Q.3". I will try to give a few reasons for that conclusion.
The Cunard cash reserves are not to be confused with the other reserves. If one talks about buildings and offices in America and Britain one must remember that they are not easily saleable, but if one is thinking of cash reserves, whether of £3 million or £6 million, I imagine that with the cost of renovating and overhauling ships today in any country those reserves are fully required if the whole fleet is to be maintained and even the small ships replaced to keep the line in operation, quite apart from any "Q.3" project.
We heard the other day of an American aircraft flying from Texas to Paris in three hours and a quarter. Unfortunately, I cannot see a British aircraft doing that in the near future. There are few of the larger aspects of science in which Britain can give a lead. There is at least prestige in having a large ship crossing the North Atlantic, provided that it can earn its keep. If a Mark II supersonic aircraft can fly into Idlewild every few hours it will impress Americans ten years' hence more than a 75,000-ton ship, but we cannot have that and, therefore, this is the next best thing.
We are a maritime nation and while the French, the Italians and others have super-liners, this is the best project for Britain. The 30,000-tonner is a project on paper which is being looked into. The order has not yet been placed. We have heard of a man who is to build ships to bring people across the Atlantic for £10 or £12 each. There was great publicity about it, but we have heard no more since.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member is always very careful in his statements and no doubt has good authority for what he has just said, but The Times, which I accept in this connection, made it clear that the order had been placed with an Italian shipyard, the same shipyard which had previously built a ship for the same line. It was placed because the shipyard was good at it. A tender went out two or three years ago and the order has just been placed. The whole reason for its coming to light now was that a firm order had been placed.

Sir A. V. Harvey: But we are not sufficiently competitive with American lines. If we are to be in business we must be competitive. The North

Atlantic air traffic has caused me some concern for some time, and particularly the number of daily flights carried out by the American airlines from the United States to Britain. They carry out more services than B.O.A.C. and, as a consequence, they are capturing more traffic.
It may be argued that if an independent British airline is operating parallel with B.O.A.C. that may divide the spoils, but that is not the case. The Cunard Company has a great reputation in North America and a great many Americans prefer to travel on Cunard ships rather than on their own ships because they enjoy more comfort. Cunard has a fine organisation throughout the whole of North America and it can sell tickets for travel by air provided that it receives a licence. I shall not say anything about that now, because it is under consideration by the Air Transport Advisory Council, but the more British aircraft, provided that they are properly run and organised, compete on these routes against the Americans, the better. We need to compete as much as we can.
As to the question of the Boeings, I would prefer that British aircraft were ordered, but the VC 10 is not ready and will not be for another three years. I should like an assurance from the Cunard Company that when it is in business in the air it will switch over to British aircraft when the time comes. But I do not connect the financing of the Boeings—of which I do not know the details and have no means of finding them out—in any way with subsidies and loans for ships.
We know that today credit can be obtained up to ten or twelve years through American investment bankers to sell American aircraft throughout the world and that that is why the British have lost orders from Qantas Airways, which has gone completely American. This has been entirely due to the credit terms offered. I hazard the guess that Cunards would put little money in until it got going and if the company takes advantage of these terms, then good luck to it. I hope that the proposal in the Bill will go through and that the Minister will drive the best bargain he can. If we have this ship one of our great shipyards will be helped and Great Britain will


continue to fly the flag in the North Atlantic.

Mr. Willis: I should like to congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who has special responsibility for shipping, on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, but that is about all that I can congratulate him upon. The hon. and gallant Gentleman won something of a reputation in the House of Commons as being one of the vigilant watchdogs of public expenditure. He also won a reputation for himself by the novelty of his ideas for saving money which he put before the House. He was one of the keenest members of the Estimates Committee and he was always chasing around trying to find ways of saving money. I was rather surprised, therefore, to hear his defence today of the proposition which the Committee is now asked to approve, namely, that we should make available a sum of £18 million to the Cunard Company, a sum which we on this side of the Committee seek to reduce.
As far as I followed the hon. and gallant Gentleman's arguments, to which I listened attentively, they were, first, that if the Committee accepted our Amendment we should be breaking arrangements which had been accepted by the House of Commons and which had been agreed with the Cunard Company. The second part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was devoted to providing some figures to show us that the Cunard Company could not be expected to find more than £12 million. The answer to both arguments advanced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now very much in question and is very much the same, namely, we are suggesting that the agreement ought now to be looked at again in the light of the new information available.
6.30 p.m.
We cannot be expected to approve an agreement which we now discover to have been made on the basis of—we do not know—false statements. Perhaps I should not say "false", but it is clear that the matter has been misrepresented. This is the difficulty about it; we do not even know whether there have been misrepresentations or not, because we do not know what was represented to the Government or the Chandos Committee

in the first place. The whole business is made exceedingly suspicious because the Government have failed to give us the information which would enable us to make a sound decision.
What we are being asked to do is to support a proposition not on the basis of evidence made available to the Chandos Committee, on which it made is recommendation, but on the basis of what the Government are telling us is the case for supporting it. These are two very different things, and I suggest that if they were not two very different things we should have been given the Report of the Chandos Committee. It is precisely because they are different that the Government concealed the Report and put forward their own specific set of arguments. It seems to me that we have every right to question the agreement now because, in the light of the information which has been placed before us today, it appears to have been based upon misrepresentation, a situation which was not understood at the time of the Second Reading.
In the latter part of his speech, the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave us a number of figures. I took note of some of them, but I gave up after a short time because it appeared to me that it was a very peculiar way to present a financial proposition to us—by a selection of figures, while withholding the complete picture. I should have thought that if we were to make a judgment on the basis of figures provided by the Cunard Company we ought at least to have them all and not just a selection picked out by the right hon. Gentleman and offered to us for our consumption. That is not the way very large financial deals are made.
I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that anybody seeking National Assistance would not get away with this; he would not get his rent allowance, never mind anything else, on this basis. He would have to produce documents and put them on the table and answer questions about them. But when we come to big business we are told that we must not question the figures. We are told "After all, this is big business". It is in a rather different position from the poor individual who is struggling to keep body and soul together on a mere pittance.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we could not expect the Cunard Company to find any more money, not because the venture was not commercially justifiable but because it was not fair to ask the company to take the risk. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went so far as to say that the Government are eliminating the risk. If the Government are eliminating the risk from private enterprise, what justification is there for private enterprise? I always understood that one of the justifications offered by the Conservative Party for the continuation of private enterprise and the payment of very large dividends was that private enterprise took the risk and was entitled to be rewarded according to the risk it took.
That is the argument which is so often put to us, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has now destroyed it. He says, "We are taking the risk, and the Cunard Company will, of course, allow us to take the risk at a certain fixed rate of interest". I have no doubt that if the Cunard Company cannot meet the repayments on the loans which are made to it, it will be treated in a very kindly manner, much more kindly, for instance, than Napiers treats people who cannot meet their repayments on goods which they get in Scotland.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to say that there was no close connection between this proposition and the fact that the Cunard Company had taken over Eagle Airways and was buying Boeing aircraft. But there is a connection. What is the Cunard Company doing? It is saying, "We have, or could lay our hands on, so much capital, but we are going to place it in Eagle Airways because that offers a much higher rate of interest". Of course it does. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) told us what a wonderful prospect there was for profits. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has told us exactly the same thing, pointing to the handsome profits which the firm can make and to the fact that it has a wonderful organisation in America for selling tickets and so on.
In other words, this private giant has the opportunity of selecting what it will do and putting its money into the most profitable operations while we subsidise

something which is likely not to be profitable. What sort of a Government have we? They seem to lose their heads completely every time they deal with private enterprise—and they also lose the taxpayers' money. I am left almost speechless when I look at the Government's antics in dealing with this business. I wonder whether they would hand out their own money so lavishly to the Cunard Company. I do not think so.
We have today heard how the Cunard Company makes its profits elsewhere, and we have been told that we shall subsidise it for this project. Why? We do not know. It is for reasons which are in dispute, and reasons which certainly have not convinced either side of the House of Commons. I represent a Scottish constituency, where the shipbuilding industry is exceedingly important and where one in ten of our workers are dependent upon it. Obviously, I want these men to have work, but I wonder whether this is the best way to give it to them. In any case, the work might not go to them at all, because I am reminded that it is 5-1 against it going there. Even if it went there, is this the best way, in the interests of the nation, to provide work for our people? I very much doubt it. It shall certainly require a great deal more information about this than the Government have so far given us.
A desire to run a prestige liner across the Atlantic to carry millionaires backwards and forwards—is that really the best way to spend our money? Half our country is declining and becoming depopulated. We cannot get even the smallest industry into some areas. In the whole of the Highland area, half the area of Scotland, we have been lent—not given—under the Local Employment Act only £54,000 to provide work in an area representing one-sixth of the United Kingdom. If the £6 million which we suggest should be saved were saved, it could make a very big difference there and in a large number of districts in Scotland, and provide work of a much more necessary and essential kind.
We need all sorts of things in Scotland, instead of which we are faced with this proposition. I find it difficult to feel that this is the best way of helping even the shipping industry. The same views have been expressed from the benches opposite, but during this debate I have


heard only one speech from a Member opposite who is not an interested party.

Mr. J. Howard: The hon. Member keeps referring to me, because of my constituency, as an interested party But he is just referring to building ships in the Highlands. Is he not an interested party in Scotland?

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member must not misquote me. I do not imagine that we would be building Cunard liners on Loch Ness. Nevertheless, many things could be done in the Highlands with this £6 million which would provide opportunities for our people there to find work.
Members opposite have criticised the Bill. I hope that they will be much more searching for information than they have been up to the present. The Minister of Transport should "come clean" about this. I see that he smiles. He tries to "get away with murder" in the House time after time because he smiles very pleasantly. That might look all right in the Press, but it does not cut a great deal of ice here.
What were the recommendations of the Chandos Committee? What were the facts on which those recommendations were based? Is it true that a great number of other shipping companies think that this project is not a good one? Is it true that the Cunard Company could not by itself build such a liner—because that has been challenged very effectively? Is it true that this is the best way to help the industry as a whole? We should have answers to these questions.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment. I believe that if private enterprise cannot do a job, the Government should do it. I believe in State enterprise. There does not appear to be much private enterprise left in some of these firms. The only enterprise shown is when the profits are big enough. I believe that, in a case like this, where it is desirable for something to be done in the interests of the nation, the nation should do the job itself and reap the profits, if profits are to be got.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary could run a very good nationalised shipping corporation to undertake a job like this. He has the initiative, the

courage and the originality of idea. Of course, he has also shown that he is willing to work in a public enterprise, because he has spent much of his life in a nationalised service. He has no conscience over that. To let the nation do the job would be a much better way of tackling this problem.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Marples: I hope that the Committee will not think it discourteous of me if, after three-and-a-quarter hours' debate on the first Amendment, I ask it to come to a decision. I realise that there is a clear division of opinion, but I hope that the Committee will not think it unreasonable if I rise at this point.
I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary both on his appointment and on his speech today. He has had distinguished service at the Admiralty—which, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Mr. Willis) said, is a nationalised service—and I am sure that his knowledge and experience will be of great value in trying to overcome the difficulties faced by the shipping and shipbuilding industries. Since my hon. and gallant Friend spoke, a number of hon. Members have made speeches and I want to reply to these before I come to what I consider is the main point involved here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) referred to a plane which came from America to Paris in a very short time. It was refuelled twice on the way, which does not make it a commercial proposition. If anyone is to go by ship—and I take him with me here—that will take five days. Compare that with perhaps seven hours in an aircraft now and with the situation when an aircraft reduces the journey to five hours. I do not think that that reduction will make much difference to the choice of the person who goes by sea.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), who is a distinguished member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, will no doubt be gratified to know that on the Chandos Committee there was an equally distinguished member of the Institute, Sir Thomas Robson, whose advice and guidance were available to the Chandos Committee just as the hon. Member's advice and guidance are available to this Committee. A summary of the Chandos Committee's


recommendations was published in HANSARD and has been quoted time after time. Sir Thomas Robson was one of those who signed the summary.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not a fact that Sir Thomas, with the other signatories, said that the Cunard Company had available only £12 million from its own resources to finance this project? Is that true?

Mr. Marples: I will deal with that point. I want to deal with it in my own way.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it true?

Mr. Marples: That is what was true in this particular project. There were certain reasons, which I will advance, why that statement was made.
Before I get on to the main point I want to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), because on Second Reading he said:
I assure the Minister right away that he has my support for the Bill, and that may somewhat lighten the burden which both sides have placed upon his shoulders during the debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1961; Vol. 639, c. 995.]
I thank the hon. Member for his support today, though I think that it was more qualified than on the previous occasion.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the reasons for that. Of course, I still support the Bill, and I do so because I have an interest in it. But the right hon. Gentleman will also agree that, though my support is still with the Bill, we now know more of what has been going on between Second Reading and the Committee stage than we did before.

Mr. Marples: The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Most of the speeches have ranged rather as though in a Second Reading debate, but the House has approved this Measure in principle. Most of the contributions today have stated that the company has cash for other types of investment and, therefore, it should put the money into this project. I want to make a distinction.
Like many others, the Cunard Company has many ventures. The hon. Member for Gloucester mentioned something about a ship of 30,000 tons going

at 24 knots. That was about the size and speed of the old "Mauritania," which has now been scrapped. The company ran that vessel without a subsidy—there is nothing new in that. But it did not run the ship on the express passenger service across the Atlantic.
The company's activities can be divided into two. The first category is where it competes with heavily subsidised foreign competitors. The hon. Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) quoted my Second Reading speech, but did not go on to the following paragraph, where I said:
At this point, it might be convenient to the House to examine the facts and nature of the express passenger North Atlantic service. I wish to distinguish between that express passenger service and the ordinary service across the Atlantic, because the express passenger service takes the cream of the passengers-who go across the Atlantic by ship.
I went on to say:
Thirdly, it is the most heavily subsidised service in the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1961; Vol. 639, c. 914.]
and I later gave details of the competition which the company is facing—because that competition is not the same as it is in the case of Boeings or in the case of the old "Mauritania". The company is facing competition which is vastly unfair. The United States pays a subsidy of 58 per cent. on the capital cost of its ships, and the French provide a subsidy of 20 per cent. on the capital cost. We are giving 11 per cent. That is not over-generous by any stretch of the imagination.
Further, the Americans subsidise the running costs of their ship, the "United States" to the extent of 28 per cent., and the French provide a sum equal to any losses which the French company makes. We provide no subsidy. How can we ask any firm of any sort to face that kind of competition and live? It cannot be done.

Mr. Shinwell: Did the right hon. Gentleman ask them?

Mr. Marples: Therefore, the company said that if we wanted an express passenger service the Government would have to assist.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Who wanted it?

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister has said that we could not ask the company to face this competition on its own. His hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) asked whether the Cunard Company wanted to run this line and had come to the Government and asked for the necessary financial assistance, or whether the Government, for their own reasons and prestige purposes, wanted this express line to go on and, therefore, asked the company to carry on.

Mr. Marples: It is clear from what I said in the Second Reading debate. Perhaps I may repeat it. I said that the story started two or three years ago, when the company told the Government that the "Queen Mary" would soon be too old to go across the Atlantic, and that it could not face the existing subsidised competition unless the Government provided some help. The company did not ask for assistance on the same scale as that provided by other nations, but it wanted a little help so that it could provide for this service, and it stated that all it could provide, in the face of this heavy competition, was £12 million. The Government therefore set up the Chandos Committee with a view to finding out what financial arrangements could be made.
The red herring that has been trailed this afternoon arises from the fact that the company has two types of activity. It runs many ships to Canada without a subsidy, but if we want an express North Atlantic service it must have a subsidy.

Mr. Shinwell: How much?

Mr. Marples: A subsidy of £3¼ million.

Mr. Callaghan: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to answer the point, which is central to the debate. He has told us that the Chandos Committee was set up for a special purpose, but it was the Government who gave that Committee its terms of reference, and the Government asked the Committee to consider how an express passenger service across the North Atlantic could best be maintained. I am asking a question which is susceptible of a pretty clear answer. Do the Government want to maintain this for prestige purposes, or does the company want to run this service as a revenue-earning operation.

Mr. Marples: In the first place the company said, "The 'Queen Mary' is

old, and shortly will not be able to carry out this task. Therefore we, who have a great tradition for crossing the Atlantic, wish to continue if we can get some help. What sort of help can you give us?" That is why the Government set up the Chandos Committee. It was to go into all the questions and find out what sort of assistance could be given to the company. It was reasonable both from the Government's point of view and that of the company and, at the same time, comparing the subsidy with those paid by the United States and France for their ships. If we do not give the company that help Great Britain will withdraw from the express passenger service across the Atlantic. If hon. Members wish for that to happen they should have voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, because that is a point of principle.

Mr. P. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that he would love to be shot of the terms of reference of the Chandos Committee?

Mr. Marples: It is nothing like that. I am giving the Government's point of view, and saying that the company is receiving less than its competitors on that route. Therefore, as a Government we have a reasonably good bargain.
As my hon. Friend has said, this Amendment, which seeks to reduce the amount of the loan, is a wrecking Amendment. There would be no service if it were accepted, and we must face that fact. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will come to a decision by dividing, so that we can see who is in favour of this express passenger service and who is not. The Government cannot accept the Amendment at this stage. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) wishes to speak I will resume my seat and give him the opportunity, and I hope that afterwards the Committee may be able to come to a decision.

Mr. Willey: The Committee should know that the right hon. Gentleman is being gravely discourteous to hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman was informed in the usual way that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who has sat here throughout the debate, wished to speak before the right hon. Gentleman intervened.

Mr. Marples: As the hon. Member has accused me of discourtesy, perhaps I may be allowed to say that we have already had two Front Bench speeches from the benches opposite, and I thought that it would be no discourtesy if I were the second Front Bench speaker from this side of the Committee.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman has only underlined his discourtesy. I am certain that all hon. Members expected him to express some regret or, alternatively, offer an acceptable explanation, if he was so anxious to intervene.
We are now discussing something of considerable importance. It is clear that some hon. Members opposite are very critical of the Government on this issue. They have spoken in favour of the Amendment. In fact, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) has expressed the intention of voting against the Government. This is not a matter in respect of which the Minister can say, at 6.45 p.m. "We are going to divide on this at seven o'clock". This is a very serious issue.
Reference has been made to the second leader in The Times of today. The right hon. Gentleman is being too clever by half if he thinks, just before we have to adjourn our business, that we should reach a hurried decision by way of a Division. We are relieved to see that he is not supported in that wish by the Patronage Secretary who, during the course of this Session, has learned discretion.
I start with the first matter that was discussed and which is the crux of the

situation—the Report of the Chandos Committee. There are two things that we do not know about that Report. We do not know what cautionary advice the Committee may have tendered to the Government. That has not been revealed, Therefore, we do not know how we should consider the Amendment, because we do not know what qualifications or reservations the Committee may have made in its report. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), with his inside information, may be better informed. He may be as well informed as the right hon. Gentleman—but we do not know. This is a matter which should be before the Committee. It is unrealistic to expect us to come to a decision without being given this information.
We are suggesting that the figure involved should be reduced by £6 million—from £18 million to £12 million—and there was a burden upon the Minister to say that for reasons given by the Chandos Committee he felt unable to accept the Amendment. He has given no such information to the Committee. We are still as ignorant as we were about the reasons behind the recommendations of the Chandos Committee—

It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Orders of the Day — GREAT OUSE WATER BILL (By Order)

Ordered for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I beg to move, to leave out "now considered" and to add
recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 32, page 22, line 15, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Corfield
instead thereof.
Hon. Members will see that that Amendment is to leave out from "Board" to end of line 24 and to insert:
shall pay to any person displaced from any land acquired under this Act for the purposes of any works specified in Part IV of this Act such reasonable sum as is estimated to make good any loss which he will sustain or be put to by reason of his having to quit the land.
(2) The amount of any payments to be made under the provisions of this section shall be determined by the Board or if the person claiming compensation under this section so notifies the Board, by a committee composed of two members representing Huntingdonshire County Council, two persons representing the Board, two representatives nominated by persons appearing to the Minister to represent the interests of occupiers of agricultural land, and one person, to be Chairman, to be nominated by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors".
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the farmers who will be displaced by the works which are proposed in the Bill shall be left in no doubt that they will be entitled to compensation for the loss to which they will inevitably be put. The need for making a Clause of this sort mandatory instead of merely permissive, as it now appears, arises mainly from the fact that the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, gave to tenant farmers a considerable degree of security of tenure. In spite of that, or perhaps because of it to some extent, it has never been the custom in England and Wales—unlike Scotland—for agricultural land to be let in the form that creates a leasehold interest. The normal and almost universal practice is for agricultural land to be let on a year-to-year basis and, because of the security of tenure provisions of the 1948 Act, a leasehold is becoming even rarer than it was before.
Though, in practice, the average length of agricultural tenancies is about twenty-five years—there is a turnover of about 4 per cent. per annum—the tenant farmer who is faced with compulsory acquisition is confined in effect to an interest in land extending to a minimum of one year and a maximum of just short of two years, it being possible once the acquiring authority has acquired the freehold to serve a notice to quit at any time after the land has been acquired so as to expire twelve months after the next following term day. In other words, if we are considering the very common Michaelmas tenancies, a notice to quit given this month would operate to end the tenancy a year next Michaelmas, that is to say, Michaelmas, 1962.
That gives rise to a state of affairs in which generally speaking, the acquiring authority has two alternative methods, largely quite different methods, of gaining possession, and although the choice is entirely at the discretion of the acquiring authority, and the farmer affected has no control whatever over the choice of method, the method chosen substantially affects the basis of compensation and the amount of compensation.
The acquiring authority may either acquire the tenant's remaining interest, by the familiar compulsory purchase order procedure, or may confine its acquisition to the freehold and thereafter step into the shoes of the landlord and give a notice to quit under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. If it adopts the former method, the tenant is entitled to compensation under two heads—under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.
Under the first, he is entitled to the value of his unexpired term or interest, that is, the period between the serving of the notice of entry and the date on which the tenancy can be terminated under the Agricultural Holdings Act. Using the same period, again with the Michaelmas tenancies, notice of entry given now would extend the period to Michaelmas, 1962.
The second head under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act is for "any just allowance which ought to be made to the farmer by the incoming tenant for any loss or injury which he may sustain." It has been held in a fairly recent case,


in 1954, that the value of that remaining interest is to be based on its market value on the assumption that there is a willing seller. In other words, it is based on the value of the right to enter into the farm and continue to crop it until the expiration of this period, a period of not quite two years at the most and never less than one year.
The House may think that the existance of a willing buyer of such a very limited and unsatisfactory interest might be somewhat hypothetical and the calculation of market value based on his existence even more so. However that may be, I am reliably informed that the compensation under this system works out at between 25 and 75 per cent. of the loss of profits over the period, and that in itself strikingly illustrates the disadvantageous position of the tenant farmer compared with the tenant of any other form of business. Nevertheless, with the second head of compensation, the right of "any just allowance" for other injury, I am told that this method of valuation almost universally produces a far more generous sum of compensation than does the alternative method.
The alternative method, which is for the acquiring authority to acquire the freehold and then, in its capacity of landlord, to give notice to quit, results in compensation for disturbance being strictly limited, under the 1948 Act itself, to a minimum of one year's rent and a maximum of two years' rent, provided that the farmer can prove necessary expenditure over and above the one year's rent. In passing, it is necessary to say that the minimum if one year's rent is often more a theoretical than a practical minimum, because there are circumstances in which the compensation may be very much less than one year's rent. It is to be noted that whatever the actual loss to which a farmer may be put, there is this rigid upper limit of a maximum sum equivalent to two years' rent.
In this, as in all cases involving a large area of agricultural land, as invariably happens when reservoirs are concerned, we have a considerable number of farmers displaced at the same time, all through the same area, all familiar with the same type of land and all looking for alternative farms, presumably again in the same area and presumably of the same type. An alternative farm

to let, even without those qualifications, is something which is extremely difficult to find, as the House well knows.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Gentleman said that a considerable number of farmers would be displaced. It would be of use to the House in coming to a decision if he could tell us how many farms there are. My information is that there are seven.

Mr. Corfield: I understand that the total area is about 2,000 acres, and that there are 15 or 17 farms. However that may be, the job of finding a new farm, even without these complications, always does, and will, involve a great deal of time and travel, and that in itself will add up to a considerable item.
In some cases the farmer may well find that he is unable to find an alternative farm by the date on which he is due to give up his existing holding. In that case he will have to dispose of his stock, both live and dead stock, and he will not be able to substantiate a claim for the cost of moving because there will be nothing to move. If he is eventually successful in finding another farm he will undoubtedly find it a great deal more expensive to start farming de novo in the new area rather than with the nucleus of his stock from his existing farm.
Here, again, there are circumstances which are beyond the control of the individual farmer and which can vary the basis of compensation even with this method. It is common practice nowadays for tenancy agreements to include clauses providing for the resumption of possession at less than the statutory twelve months' notice—three months is very often used and sometimes six months—for some special purpose other than the use of the land for agriculture.
If that clause is included, it is open to a landlord, in this case the acquiring authority, to demand possession within that period, and in that case the compensation is accordingly affected. It is, I believe, theoretically possible under this system for the claim to compensation to be eliminated altogether, although my researches have not enabled me to find a case which has gone as far as that.
I think that it will be seen by the House that as a result of these proposals these farmers have already inevitably suffered a considerable period of financial


anxiety with these acquisition proposals hanging over them. They are entitled to know that they have a right to have their losses made good. The preliminary losses may already be substantial in some cases. I am informed that one farmer with a farm of 500 acres has, as a result of these proposals, been faced over the greater part of the current season with trying to farm that acreage with a single farm worker because the uncertainty has made it impossible for him to employ a full staff.
Even in the case of owner-occupiers who will get the full market value of their farms, they may well not be able to find an alternative. They may well not be able to substantiate a claim for disturbance and have to move and start again at a very much higher cost with no claim to meet that loss.
If they are tenant farmers, they will remain wholly in the dark as to the basis of compensation which they will be able to get. If the acquiring authority proceeds under the 1948 Act and the losses exceed the statutory maximum of two years' rent, they will suffer a dead loss unless they are fortunate in the use of the discretionary powers of Clause 32 of the Bill. I would have thought that it must be right that in determining what is just and fair they should not have to rely on the decision of the acquiring authority acting as judge in its own cause.
There are other matters which arise which complicate the issue where only part of a holding is acquired. If possession is taken by the acquiring authority by the ordinary compulsory purchase order procedure operating on the farmer's interest direct rather than in the capacity of a landlord, there is no entitlement for the tenant to demand the acquisition of the whole farm. That arises, too, in the case of the owner-occupier. If, on the other hand, the 1948 Agricultural Holdings Act procedure is employed there is a right under Section 32 of that Act.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Can the hon. Gentleman help on one point? This is a Private Bill and under the procedure there is a quasi-judicial stage at which anybody who is unjustly treated or feels that he has a grievance can put his objections.

Were these objections put at that stage?

Mr. Corfield: I understand that the Farmers' Union did not feel justified in the considerable cost of petitioning, and it also felt that as this matter was of considerably wider importance it might not be unsuitable for a debate in this House. I trust that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not be in major disagreement on that matter.
There is a precedent for a mandatory Clause of this type. It is to be found in Sections 41 and 42 of the Liverpool Corporation Act, 1957, which was the Act enabling the Liverpool Corporation to acquire for flooding a valley in Merionethshire, the name of which I shall not attempt to pronounce. Section 41 requires the Corporation, as far as is reasonably practicable, on the application of an owner or occupier, to reinstate him elsewhere, and this question whether reinstatement was reasonably practicable was to be determined by arbitration. Section 42 obliged the Corporation to
pay to any person displaced from any land…such reasonable allowance as the advisory committee may recommend towards any loss or in respect of any personal hard ship or disturbance which in their opinion he will sustain or be put to by reason of having to quit such land.
The advisory committee under that Act consisted of two members of the Merionethshire County Council, two representatives of the Liverpool Corporation, and an independent chairman appointed by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
The reasons given by the Chairman of the Select Committee for inclusion of this provision were, first, that the scheme would result in the disturbance of a particularly valuable type of Welsh culture. No doubt that was a loss, or a prospective loss, at the time to Wales, but it surely cannot be argued that it inflicted a greater loss on the individual farmer than the proposals of the Bill are inflicting on the farmers of Huntingdonshire.
The second reason given was that there was a comparatively large number of people who would be displaced in a short time and it would be difficult to rehabilitate them. As the shortage of land to farm, and particularly land which is to rent to farm, becomes increasingly severe, this will apply to


any scheme where a large area of agricultural land is concerned, and in my view the present proposal is on all fours with that of the Liverpool Corporation Act.
I hope that when my hon. Friend advises the House as to the view the Government take he will bear in mind that although his right hon. Friend has a special responsibility for Wales, he is, in his capacity as Minister of Housing and Local Government, every bit as responsible for the farmers of Huntingdonshire. I hope that we shall not establish the principle that a Welsh farm or a Welsh farmer is necessarily per se more valuable than one in Huntingdonshire.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. John Hobson: I think it my duty, Mr. Speaker, to disclose to you and to the House that I have a possible interest in the subject of this Private Bill. In my capacity as trustee I hold stock in the Luton Water Company which is affected by the Bill. Generally, I have no immediate interest in either of my trustee holdings. One is in respect of a private marriage settlement in which I may have expectations, but I do not know whether I have. The other is in my capacity as trustee to a mental hospital in which again I have no immediate interest, but I may have. I thought it appropriate in the circumstances to disclose to the House such interest as I might have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has explained why we have this difficult question brought before us at this stage. The National Farmers' Union was unwilling to embark on the expense of a Petition before the Committee. It occurs to me that, in accordance with the rules of the House, it might well have been possible to have moved that it be an instruction to the Committee to consider this matter before the Bill was sent to the Committee. Then we should have had the advantage of the consideration of the Committee, which could have heard full and detailed arguments on these difficult matters and considered the question in greater detail and at greater length.
It raises a very wide and difficult question of general principle. One of the

reasons why I respectfully suggest that the House should reject the proposal of my hon. Friend is that he is trying by this private and minor Bill, affecting in total about fifteen farmers, to slip in what is a fundamental alteration in the law of compensation. It is a great burden on the promoters of the Great Ouse Water Bill to have this matter debated when it affects so few people. I am informed that seven farmhouses and six farm cottages are affected. There are about fifteen holdings affected substantially to the extent that more than 50 per cent. of the land is being taken. A further seven holdings—making twenty-two in all—are affected to a lesser degree in that 50 per cent. or less of the holdings will be affected by what is compulsorily acquired.
My hon. Friend said that one of the unfairnesses in this proposal is that part of the holding might be taken, to the great disadvantage of the farmer, who might be left with a part, perhaps a useless part, of the holding. If my hon. Friend looks at Clause 24 of the Bill, he will find that there are provisions whereby any person from whom it is proposed that part of a holding shall be acquired by compulsory purchase can insist upon the whole being taken; unless he is affected to so slight an extent that it would be unreasonable to expect the acquiring authority to acquire the whole when it needed only a very small and insignificant part. Therefore, I think that that point falls to the ground.
I am not sure whether in this case the net cash result of our debate is likely to have any substantial result on the farmers who will be affected. While the promoters cannot in any way bind the authority which is to be set up, the members of which have to be nominated by different bodies, nevertheless the promoters do now to some extent represent the bodies which will subsequently nominate the members of the authority. I am authorised to say that it is their general expectation that claims for exceptional losses under Clause 32 of the Bill—which is what my hon. Friend is raising—will be treated liberally and probably as generously as they would be if there were a mandatory provision in the Bill that compensation at a certain scale must be assessed and paid by the water authority to be set up under the Bill.
The difficulty which I see about the proposal of my hon. Friend is that he is proposing that the compensation which should be paid to those farmers should be far more extensive than is paid under the general law either to residential or business householders or to agricultural tenants generally throughout the country. There is one case only in recent history, or even past history, where a similar provision has been included in a Bill providing for compensation. That is in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend of the Liverpool Corporation Act, 1957. But the chairman of the committee which laid down that provision expressly said that it was a very exceptional case. Far more people were affected. A whole village was extinguished and a large number of people moved in an area in the centre of Wales. In addition, it was established by the committee that something should be done to preserve the culture of Wales in that area. It should not be accepted that such a provision should be a precedent for any future occasion in any future Bill. I know not whether the culture of Huntingdon is exceptional, or whether the 15 or 22 farmers affected carry within themselves a particular Huntingdonian form of culture which ought equally to be preserved. I see difficulty in suggesting that there is any such reason for following the exceptional provision in the Liverpool Act.
More recently, in the Tees legislation, there was a provision almost exactly similar to the provision included in this Bill. Both provide for the same method of assessing compensation, and paying it, as is provided under the provisions of Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, regarding persons occupying residential buildings or persons carrying on any trade or business. I understand that recently the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave an undertaking that he would extend similar provisions for the benefit of agricultural tenants when it is convenient for the Government to include such a Clause in a Government Bill. In this case the tenants affected will have the advantage which is promised for all agricultural tenants for the future. Therefore, we have the position that all residential or business tenants, these tenants, and, in future—when the Government can legislate for it—all agricultural

tenants, will be paid special losses which they can establish to the satisfaction of the acquiring authority, upon the basis, however, that it is discretionary in the acquiring authority to pay such compensation.
My hon. Friend desires, first of all, that such compensation should be assessed by an independent body consisting of a variety of persons which shall sit judicially and assess the amount of compensation, and it shall then be mandatory on the acquiring authority to pay that amount of compensation. I quite understand that there might be an argument for saying that residential tenants and business tenants and all forms of displaced tenants ought to have the right to submit to an independent body the assessment of their compensation, and that the payment of such should be mandatory upon the acquiring authority. Surely, that is a subject that ought to be debated on general principle by the House as a whole, and applied to all such tenancies, not slipped into a Bill of this nature so that the Liverpool and the Great Ouse water authorities are the only authorities acquiring land compulsorily which are subject to these very special provisions.
There are in the Amendment some detailed provisions which are also causing considerable anxiety to the promoters. In the first place, the Amendment provides that the Board shall pay compensation for anything done under the Act, when the Private Bill we are considering contains provisions affecting a number of other bodies. The Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board, the Lea Valley Water Company and the Luton Water Company may do—and indeed have to do—things for which they would have to pay compensation, but, under the provisions as drafted by my hon. Friend, the new board would have nothing whatever to do with what had been done by the Mid-Northamptonshire, the Lea Valley or the Luton water undertakings, which would find themselves faced with the payment of additional personal loss compensation provided for in this Clause.
Furthermore, the members of the independent body who are to assess this provision, according to the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, include the members of the Huntingdonshire County Council, who have a very small financial


interest indeed in the whole of this water undertaking—I think about one-fifth of the total financial interest. Bedfordshire is not represented, and many works may be undertaken there and in Northamptonshire and Hertfordshire, but they will be unrepresented on any body which is assessing the compensation ultimately to be paid.
These are some of the considerations which I would respectfully submit to the House ought to be borne in mind and which should lead this House at this stage to reject the proposals of my hon. Friend as being quite exceptional. It would be wrong to consider them in this immediate and particular context. I am bound to say, however, that the promoters are quite content that this House should decide, and are perfectly willing that whatever this House should decide should be binding upon them, and, to that extent they are not particularly interested in the arguments of principle.
It would be more expensive for the provision of the water, but not very much more so. Their principal and main interest is to see that this Bill is passed this Session, in order that the reservoir may be constructed as soon as possible and an additional supply of water made available to those persons who need it immediately. I suggest that we should reject this proposal, but the promoters leave it entirely to the House to decide.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: In regard to the merits of this proposal, we have a system of compensation which has been accepted for a very great number of years. As against that, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) suggests the case of Lake Vyrnwy, the pronunciation of which, oddly enough, is relatively simple, in spite of the spelling being formidable. The situation arose that Liverpool was seeking water about 60 miles from the city, and this raised very great feelings in Wales, particularly because a whole village, including a church, had to disappear for the benefit of Liverpool. In these circumstances, a quite exceptional provision was made.
That is not, however, what I want to go into here, because it seems to me that, apart altogether from the merits, this is not the stage at which we ought to consider

this sort of proposal. For Private Bills there is a special procedure, and that procedure has been worked out through some centuries of experience. Those of us who listened to the hon. Gentleman's opening speech, detailed as it was, even those of us who have had a legal training, will have had the utmost difficulty in understanding what it was about. That is quite simply because this is the wrong form, the wrong place and the wrong procedure for that sort of argument.
This is the sort of argument which needs a judicial procedure to follow it, and that is why the judicial procedure of the Private Bills Committee was set up. There, counsel can argue and one can have the documents before one and one can understand, and a record is made. If an appeal from that Committee is brought to the House, the documents and the arguments are before the House, and by studying those documents it is possible to understand and appreciate what it is about. To try to take the sort of argument which we had from the hon. Gentleman without that preparation is contrary to the whole spirit of the procedure on Private Bills. It is not reasonable for the National Farmers' Union, when it comes to a matter of principle, to plead poverty. It is a ridiculous plea.
I say that to come here at this stage with this sort of argument and ask the House to reverse an established procedure in the interests of, maybe, seven or, maybe, twenty-two farmers, or something between the two, who are affected by the different methods of compensation, is an abuse of our procedure and one which we ought not to consider for a moment.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), but I should like to say two things by way of preamble. The first is that Diddington, which is the site of the proposed works, lies just over the border of my constituency, and, naturally, I have consulted fully with my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in whose constituency it lies, before speaking on behalf of the Diddington farmers as well


as those in my own constituency, some of whom are also affected.
The second is that it is no part of my intention or desire to oppose this Bill or in any way to cause delay. There is no doubt in my mind that the need for this water is both real and urgent. Furthermore, it must come from the Great Ouse, and a large storage capacity is necessary. It is certainly true that I had hoped that an alternative scheme to the one now proposed might have been adopted. I had hoped that for a long time. There are in my constituency a number of large worked out clay pits belonging to the brickworks at Stewartby and Marston, which it was hoped would serve as reservoirs instead of Diddington. It was only with great reluctance that I came to accept the Diddington scheme as inevitable. There are various reasons for this—but the most cogent was that Stewartby, the name by which the other scheme came to be known—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to discuss other schemes on a recommital Motion.

Mr. Hastings: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I merely meant to emphasise that it would have been better if that scheme could have been adopted, but of course I see the point.
The true effects of the Diddington scheme were clear to me only when I had talked to some of the unfortunate families who are affected by it; when I had watched them point out their boundaries, the extent of the work they had put in over the years, the plans they had had for the future; when I had seen projects which had to be abandoned and hopes frustrated—piles of bricks for instance, obtained for a barn planned long ago, but which will now never be built; new implements long saved for and which will never now be used, and probably sold at a loss.
I realise that there may be only seven farmers badly affected and only fifteen affected in all, but in my view to them this matter is just important as if there were fifty. It is not easy to make a fresh start in life, especially in farming, after ten, twelve, and, in one case, twenty-three years, on the same piece of land and when one is no longer young. It is not easy to face the break-up of a family partnership and to see a son who has helped

on the place, and is due to take over, barred from doing so; but that will happen in more than one case at Diddington. Because of the grave difficulties in moving, there is a tendency for farmers to hang on even though their farms, once the land has been taken by this scheme, will be uneconomic to run, and that is dangerous to them as individuals.
I do not personally know how these people can be properly compensated for the loss some of them will suffer, but what I heard and saw at Diddington was enough to convince me that it is no idle matter to take a decision to flood such a valley. This, also, is undoubtedly the view of the promoters, some of whom I know personally. I wish to quote the words of Sir Frederick Mander, Chairman of Bedfordshire County Council. In Committee upstairs, he said:
It is not a pleasant experience to stand and look at a valley and know that shortly you are going to drown those farms. Although we knew that the landowners were covered by the new altered law and were assured, at any rate, of compensation up to the full market value of their land, we were not satisfied that the legal entitlement of the tenants to compensation for disturbance was adequate, and we instructed that in the drafting of the Bill there should be included the most favourable compensation clauses that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would be able to accept.
I believe that that represents accurately the frame of mind of the promoters. I was surprised to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) say that they would be gravely disturbed by the proposed Amendment. I believe on the other hand—although I could not commit them in any way—that they might welcome increased compensation along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South.
The effects of the scheme on the farmers range from inconvenience, to what one might fairly call grave distress. To give an idea of what the compensating authority will have to cope with, I have divided the cases into various categories.
First and foremost, there are those who will suffer because pipelines will be driven through their land. They will lose the use of that land for a year, or possibly two. Secondly, there are those who will lose a portion of the land but who nevertheless will be able to carry


on although the economy of their farms will be altered. Thirdly, there are those who will have some land left but will be unable to carry on farming. Fourthly, there are those who are due to see their farms and homesteads completely inundated.
The most important difference is between an owner-occupier and a tenant farmer, as was clearly brought out by my hon. Friend. Of the farmers involved, twelve are tenants and three are owner-occupiers. The problem of rented farms applies particularly in the Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire area. Before the last war it may have been comparatively easy to walk out of one farm into another, but now it is extremely difficult to find a farm to rent. Some may have to wait for years before they can get another. When one does come on the market, it will go out to tender and the highest bidder will get it. These people will be extremely keen to get anything which comes up, which may well result in more being paid for the farm than the land is worth and more than the farmer can afford.
I shall give the House one or two examples of the various categories in an endeavour to describe the complexity of the compensation problem and to show how each case varies. Farmer A is affected by the pipeline. He is in the first category. He farms 120 acres in my constituency. He is a market gardener and this is very valuable land. He loses three fields or about 50 acres for one year and possibly two. He makes about £50 an acre and will therefore suffer a loss of £2,500 a year. Another thing: this farmer does not send his produce straight to Covent Garden, but markets it on his own account with his own transport. He depends for success on the good will of wholesaler clients in Northampton and elsewhere, and in order to maintain that good will over the period during which the works take place he may have to buy produce from neigh-hours and other farmers, and this operation will certainly prove unprofitable. There is also the question of labour which is very hard to come by in this area. He cannot allow his labour force to go. He will be forced to keep his workers, unprofitably, until he can bring his land back into use. There are also more technical questions, such as

the damage to soil structure and weed control, for if land is left neglected, even for six weeks, at this time of year, it can come near to wrecking a horticultural crop. This is a complicated market gardening case and I am doubtful whether anyone could appreciate what precisely is at stake if he knows nothing about horticulture.
Farmer B farms 714 acres on the edge of the Diddington area. He raises sheep and cattle, and grows feed crops for them. He will lose 150 acres and estimates that he will have to cut down operations by about a quarter. His gross profit will therefore fall by the same margin, although his overheads will remain substantially the same. This loss is permanent unless he can alter his farm economy in some more profitable way or substitute another form of farming. His compensation for the one or two years rent on 150 acres will not cover this loss for more than two years at the outside. This is a different problem. To my way of thinking, it is a question of deciding how long the loss of profits should be covered by compensation before he can reasonably be expected to recoup by new methods.
Farmer C has 208 acres in the Diddington Valley and is left with only 70 acres. His farm consists of arable land and cattle, pigs and poultry. The arable land will go and he will have to sell his cattle. The most profitable side of his business will be taken. The only way in which he can carry on is to intensify his farming, which would mean building up on his poultry and pigs. I apologise for these technicalities, but they are material to my case. He will have to build new deep litter sheds for his poultry and a new piggery. He will face a capital investment of about £3,000 and the compensation he will get will certainly not exceed £1,000.

Mr. Hobson: Why does my hon. Friend mention a figure of that sort in view of Clause 32 which enables the authority to take all these factors into consideration in assessing what is to be paid in compensation?

Mr. Hastings: I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree that what we are asking for in the Amendment is to give these farmers a right. Although I take the point my hon. and learned


Friend has made, that still does not establish a right, which we are trying to do. In addition to the figures I have named, this farmer was expecting to have mains electricity brought to the farm, which is extremely important to this type of farming.
This electricity is no longer to come. I cannot say whether the change is due to the Diddington scheme, but I assume that is the case. As the result of the electricity installation being cancelled, this farmer has had to install a plant of his own at a cost of about £500. Again, he wanted to build a barn in which to keep his straw dry, which is important for deep litter poultry. This had been agreed by the landlord, but since news of the Diddington scheme was received, permission has been withdrawn. This farmer's problem is one of new investments—of financing an entirely new type of farm—and his problem differs completely from the other examples I have so far cited.
Farmer D, who farms 419 acres at Diddington, will have only 200 acres left. This remaining land will be in four little bits and access to it is extremely difficult. Three bits are virtually islands, and it will be impossible for him to carry on. His farm is isolated and labour has always been difficult for him to obtain, and he is in exactly the same trouble over electricity as is the farmer I have previously mentioned. Electricity from the mains was promised and then cancelled, and I consider that the reason for that cancellation was probably the Diddington scheme. This man has also had to install his own plant at considerable expense.
Then news of the scheme became widespread, and his workers began to leave. He has had to continue to run his farm on casual labour and has been finding it increasingly difficult to keep going. He has already had to sell his cattle. Thus, losses have already been incurred.
His farm is run in conjunction with another which belongs to his brother. The two farms are run as a single economic unit, and the fact that he is to lose the land at Diddington means that it will be uneconomic to continue on this farm, for feed will have to be purchased instead of it being provided at Diddington. I find it extremely

difficult to assess this man's loss even in the roughest figures, and, again, his problems are entirely different from those I have previously described.
Farmer E will lose all of his 350 acres. He has farmed at Diddington for twelve years and has brought the land back from a state of dereliction to one of good heart. He has built up a good herd of dairy cattle. He has ploughed back every penny he has made into the land, and this farm, and he knows and wants no other trade. This man sees very little chance—and I am forced to agree with him—of finding another farm on anything like similar terms. There are, I believe, four farmers in the same position, and these cases are the worst of all.
I hope that these examples—and I am sorry to have dealt with them at such length—will show not only the gravity of the blow which faces these people at Diddington, but will demonstrate the variation and complexity of the problem of compensation. Losses are occurring, even though work has not yet started. Losses have been suffered. No two cases are alike, and the possibility of inequitable treatment is, in my view, infinite.
We wish—and I believe the Amendment is aimed precisely at this—to obviate this risk. It is not fair to require any single body, corporation or individual—and I suppose it would be the district valuer in this case—to judge these cases arbitrarily—and particularly since they are to be judges in their own cause. It will not be fair to those who will have to arbitrate and it will certainly not be fair on the farmers of Diddington.
It has been argued by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington that the Amendment creates, or would create, an important and dangerous precedent. But where the law is so loosely arranged, as I am sure the House will agree from what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South said, we should not be concerned so much with precedent as with the need to reform it. That is a matter for another debate, but in the meantime, surely, our concern should be to treat each case—particularly cases of the gravity of that at Diddington—on its merits and according to circumstances. What I have sought


to do this evening is to describe some of these circumstances to the House.
If it is right for the Diddington farmers to be fully compensated—and I am sure no hon. Member, or the Ministry, would wish to deny that—we believe that they should have that compensation by right, and not by charity. Further, because of the extremely complex and individual nature of the claims, we also believe that there should be a right of appeal to an independent and knowledgeable tribunal. I do not wish to argue about the precise make-up of the tribunal. It might be possible to alter it in the way implied by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. But that there should be a tribunal, and an appeal for these farmers, must go without saying. It is only in this way that justice will be ensured for the farmers of Diddington, some of whom will suffer grievously under this Bill. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will agree that the Bill should be recommitted and the Amendment accepted.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hope that hon. Members will not agree to have this Clause recommitted for the reasons given lucidly and with great force by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). They proved that this would go too far.
If there is a gap in the law, this is not the time to close it, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington pointed out. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and the longer I listened the more I wished that the National Farmers' Union had petitioned against the Bill when it appeared before the Select Committee. I rise principally to say that, as I was a member of that Committee, the Committee was alive to the fact that there were farmers, and others, who would be displaced and we were surprised to find that some of them did not petition the Committee in order that their cases should be heard.
On more than one occasion members of the Committee—including myself—put questions to learned counsel on this point. The proceedings lasted for six days. Deliberations were not hurried and we had four learned members of the Bar appearing before us, plus a great number of witnesses.
If I am in order in doing so, I would like to read one or two extracts from the proceedings. Counsel informed us that there were 22 different tenancies affected and he went on to say:
There are seven farmhouses that will be submerged and six cottages.
As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he was speaking mainly for the farmers, although I assume others also are affected, and we feel sorry for them.

Mr. Hastings: I think that there is a little more to it than that. There are a number and although their houses will remain, so much of their farms will disappear that it will be impossible for them, economically, to carry on. In fact, they will be in exactly the same position, as far as their livelihoods are concerned, as those whose houses will go under as well.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I accept that. I understood that something of the kind was the reason why certain other tenancies were involved, but that only underlines the point which has been made several times in the debate tonight, namely, why was not all this brought out when the Committee was sitting? That was the time and place at which individual witnesses could be examined and cross-examined and the truth brought out in much greater detail than is possible in this Chamber.
May I read another quotation from the verbatim report of the proceedings of the Select Committee? I asked counsel whether those who were being dispossessed had been approached, and the answer was:
They have all had notice served upon them informing them that the land will be taken from them and none of them has objected to this scheme.
I asked:
Is it arable land or to what use is it generally put?
I was told that it was arable and pasture as well. One other member of the Committee underlined my questions and it


came out clearly that the farmers either were satisfied with the Clause providing for compensation in the Bill, or else had not thought it worth while to petition. That being the situation it is a little difficult for us in the House, on an occasion like this, to return to the matter and to give leave for the Bill to be recommitted.
I have been given to understand that the promoters are willing to add words to Clause 32 which may assist the individuals to whom the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred. I believe that the Bill has not yet appeared before a Select Committee in another place. It seems to me that if there is any body of owners or tenants in the Diddington area who still feel aggrieved, and are not sure that they will get justice under the Clauses which appear in the Bill, then will be the occasion perhaps to have words added to Clause 32 which will meet the point which they have in mind. But I am certain—and I hope that the House agrees—that the method suggested tonight is not the right method to have this matter put right.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I rise to support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) to recommit the Bill. It is unfortunate that this point was not raised in the Select Committee upstairs, where it could have been dealt with in detail, but I do not think that the House should be precluded from considering this point on its merits at this stage merely because it was not raised by private individuals outside the House earlier.
Precedent plays a large part in Private Bills. It plays a large part in the Committee stage of Private Bills. I do not think that the House should be bound too tightly by precedent. It should consider a Bill of this sort on its merits. The House can surely take a broad view of this point of the right to compensation as against a discretionary power to grant compensation to those who are to be displaced by operations authorised under the Bill. I do not think that the House should be put off this consideration by a vague promise of general legislation to deal with this point. If this is a point through which an individual will be harmed, then the House might well deal with it now.
What are the merits of the case? The Bill creates a new public authority to operate about £12 million worth of works, and it gives that authority power to take individuals' land. That land is not residential land and it is not commercial property. The compensation rules concerning residential property and commercial property therefore do not apply. The Bill does not deal merely with easements for pipelines. It does not deal merely with a strip of land for widening a road or even for constructing a road. It deals with 2,000 acres of farming land which is to be put under water.
In many cases it deals with whole farms—and that is something which deserves a little more than the ordinary compensation which can be granted under the general law. I say that because the Bill has already recognised that fact. It is recognised in Clause 32 that the owners of these 2,000 acres are entitled to something more than ordinary compensation. The damage is to be considered by the board and the board has been given a discretion to grant further compensation.
If Clause 32 is right in principle in stating that extra compensation should be given, surely it is right that the board should not be a judge in its own cause. Surely it is correct that these displaced persons should be given a right to compensation and a right to have that compensation assessed before an independent and expert tribunal so that the board is not a judge in its own cause.
It may be said, "What does it matter? We shall have an honest board which will give a fair and just decision. In any case, only a few people are concerned—only about seven farmers are concerned—and it is a small matter, not a great matter of principle. What does it matter if we leave the whole question to the board to decide?"
It seems to matter a great deal to the Ministry, because in the statement from the promoters of the Bill we read, in paragraph 7:
The promoters were informed by the Ministry that their Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would feel bound to offer the strongest opposition to any clause which provided that the authority should be under an obligation to make such payments or which provided for assessment of the payments by any form of independent arbitration.


Apparently the promoters were quite prepared to put into the Bill the sort of Clause which my hon. Friend proposes in the Amendment, for which he wants the Bill to be recommitted, but the Ministry would not agree and, therefore, the promoters decided to leave it out. That is how I read the promoters' statement.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As I understand it, and I shall be corrected if I am wrong, the utmost limit to which the promoters suggest going is to put in words which were in the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Act, and not words at large such as are suggested here.

Mr. Page: Perhaps it is fair for me to read the next sentence in paragraph 8 of the statement:
Clause 32…follows, in substance, the precedent of Section 32 of the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Act, 1959. The words 'or in respect of any personal hardship' following the words 'towards any loss' appear in Section 32 of the Tees Valley Act but have been omitted by the Promoters from clause 32 of the Bill because they were informed, before the Bill was deposited, that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would probably have to press for the deletion of these words.
As I understand, both Ministries—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—seem to consider it of great importance that there should not be an independent tribunal to decide this, that the farmers here should not have a right to compensation and that words such as would give them compensation in respect of any personal hardship should be left out.

Mr. Hobson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will read the final sentence of paragraph 8 of the statement on behalf of the promoters, which says:
The promoters would not wish to resist an amendment of clause 32 to insert reference to hardship if such an amendment can be made at this stage without delaying the progress of the Bill…
I am authorised to say that they would certainly be very willing indeed in the House of Lords to give due consideration with everyone concerned to inserting words to include not only the phrase "personal loss", but "hardship". I understand that that would not delay the progress of the Bill, if that is all that

was concerned. In those circumstances the promoters would be putting forward exactly the same as the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Act and the general law concerning business tenants.

Mr. Page: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I thought that that was the promoters' idea. I was not attacking the promoters so much as my hon. Friends at the two Ministries, who seem to have prevented the promoters putting fair and just Clauses into the Bill, if what the promoters say in their statement is correct. Therefore, according to the Ministries, what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) wishes to put into the Bill is not a matter of small importance. According to the Ministries, it is a matter of great importance that it should be kept out.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what he undoubtedly knows as well as the rest of us. It is not what Ministries want to put into a Bill. It is what the Committee of the House of Commons and the Select Committee of another place decide shall go into a Bill, not what Ministries want to go in or to be kept out.

Mr. Page: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. My point is that it might be thought that it is a small matter and of no concern whether the board is left to decide this or whether an independent tribunal is left to decide it. It might be thought that it is a small matter whether the words "personal hardship" go into the Bill and whether it is a right to compensation or merely a discretionary grant of compensation. I am endeavouring to point out that the Ministries apparently did not think it was a small matter. Therefore, I have become highly suspicious of the Bill as it stands.
It looks to me as if the displaced persons will not get the full compensation. It looks as if they will not get such compensation as they would get from an independent tribunal when claiming compensation as of right. If this is so, it is a negation of Clause 32, in which the principle has been recognised that these men should have something more than ordinary compensation. I hope that in some way, whether it be at this stage


or at a later stage in another place, the displaced persons will get a right to their full compensation.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has not given sufficient weight to the fact that we are considering three possibilities. First, there is Clause 32 as it now stands. Secondly, there is the Tees Valley example, which differs from Clause 32 solely in respect of including the words "personal hardship". Thirdly, there is the Amendment.
As I understand, the promoters, for their part, would have been quite willing to accept the Tees Valley version with the words "personal hardship", but they adopted what I suppose is a proper deferential attitude and said that Parliament must make up its mind about it. Their attitude was that if we, as Parliament, wish to do battle with the Ministries, it is for us rather than for them. They did not feel that they could hamper their case by inserting into the Bill something which they were told two Ministries would be opposed to. I do not think that we can quarrel with them for that.
While it is true that the promoters were quite willing, and I understand are still willing, to go that far, it cannot be argued, as one hon. Member came near to suggesting, that the promoters could even consider the Amendment which we are now asked by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) to make to the Bill. The Amendment not only brings in the question of personal hardship. It also brings in the principle of arbitration. It provides that arbitration shall be carried out by a committee, the membership of which is very far from satisfactory. It includes a county council, which has the least interest in the matter, and excludes three county councils, all of which have a greater concern. Further, I imagine that by an error of drafting it would make the new board responsible for making payments to people displaced by works which the board itself had not carried through.
Neither the promoters nor Parliament can be asked to accept such an Amendment. We shall listen with interest to what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about why his Ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture prefer Clause 32

as it now stands to Clause 32 with the hardship words in it. That is a matter on which Parliament can hear the Government's argument and, both here and in another place, can judge. That is not what we are being asked to consider and vote on. We are being asked to consider an unsatisfactory, and indeed unworkable Amendment, and I hope that we shall reject it.

8.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): This has been a deeply felt debate and I shall try to deal comprehensively with all that has been said. There are two problems. First, there is the question of whether the farmers concerned—I agree that it does not matter whether there is one or whether there are seven, fifteen or twenty—will be prejudiced if the Bill goes through as it is drafted compared with how they would fare if the Bill were recommitted and amended as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) proposes.
Secondly, there is the general question whether it is right for the people concerned with the Bill to make a major change in the law relating to compensation. Obviously, if the answer to the first question is that the farmers would be prejudiced if the Bill went through unamended, one approaches the second question whether the law in general, quite apart from the Bill, needs amendment with much more sympathy.
I hope to show that the farmers will not be in any way prejudiced by the Bill being passed in its present form. The House has heard some detailed and fairly complex—legitimately complex—cases put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucestershire, South and Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). They have not given examples, however, of any farmers who have actually suffered under past legislation by application of the discretionary powers provided in the Bill.
I want to face straight away the fact that the Bill as drafted leaves compensation largely to the discretion of the board. The House heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) give on behalf of the promoters an assurance of liberal treatment. Indeed, that is only


what would be expected from the promoters of the Bill, but it is only in their own interest that they should give an assurance of liberal treatment because the board, if and when it is constituted, will have to live in the midst of the farming community and will be bound to try to earn and retain the respect, and indeed the regard, of the farmers among whom it will have to work.
What I have to do is to assure the House that the board will have as complete power under Clause 32 to deal with the losses instanced by my hon. Friends as it would have if the proposed Amendment were made. I am able to discharge this duty to the full. I think that the House will be satisfied if it is shown that the farmers will not be prejudiced if the Bill is passed in its present form.
I followed as closely as I could the different examples given. I shall not deal with each in turn, but I hope that the House will accept the general proposition that whatever the actual amounts the tenant farmer may claim as of right, and whatever procedure the acquiring authority uses, Clause 32 as it stands will enable the acquiring authority to pay enough in addition—in addition—to meet all losses of a financial nature. I draw the attention of the House particularly to the fact that Clause 32 specifically acknowledges two of the special problems that such farmers may encounter, and which were referred to particularly by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire.
The House will see that by subsection (2) of Clause 32 the board
…shall have regard to the period for which the land occupied by that person might reasonably have been expected to be available for occupation by him…
That is the first point to which the board must have regard, and the second point is:
…the availability of other land suitable for occupation by him.
Therefore, the attention of the board is specifically drawn to those two factors. There is, in fact, no reason at all to think that the Clause amended in the way proposed would provide more compensation than the board can and will pay under Clause 32 as drafted.
My hon. Friend spoke as though the farmers affected by the Diddington

scheme would have to wait upon general legislation in order to get the benefit my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has promised that the farming community will get when legislation is introduced to increase the discretion for paying losses in connection with farmers to the same level at which it is payable in connection with business occupants. Unusually for him, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is wrong here, because Clause 32 already anticipates that general legislation in connection with the farmers in Diddington. In effect, Clause 32 equates the compensation for loss that would be payable for these farmers with that already payable under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, for business occupants.
The first assurance I have to give to the House is really to supplement that already given in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington; that the sort of cases instanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire could be as well met by Clause 32 as by this Amendment. I must, however, be cautious about one section of losses, and those are the pre-acquisition losses instanced by the hon. Gentleman.
It is doubtful whether pre-acquisition losses will be covered by Clause 32, since, as the House will notice, it refers to
…any loss which, in their opinion"—
that is, the opinion of the board—
he"—
that is the person displaced—
will sustain, or be put to, by reason of his having to quit the land.
That is a nice legal point. It might exclude pre-acquisition losses, but that comment is equally true of the Amendment. The House will see in the first subsection of the Amendment reference to
…such reasonable sum as is estimated to make good any loss which he will sustain or be put to…
Therefore, again, the person concerned—the displaced person—would be open to equal treatment under the Bill as drafted as under the Amendment.
I would put this general proposition to the House. The acquiring authority may well be more inclined to be generous if the power is permissive than if there is


a committee assessing what must be paid by some legal scale or some scale imposed by precedent. It is more likely to stretch its powers to the widest possible legal interpretation if those powers are permissive and discretionary, and particularly by reason of the assurance given on behalf of the promoters by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington.
I come now to the point made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) about individual hardship. As he quite rightly says, there is the precedent of the Tees Valley Bill which has been, as it were, half accepted by the promoters of this Bill; that, if the House thought it wise, they would be willing later to consider an Amendment importing into Clause 32 considerations of financial hardship. The difficulty here is that it is not immediately obvious that there are burdens of a financial nature coming under the head of hardship that would not already come under the head of loss but, certainly, if hon. Members are able between now and the proceedings in another place, or by way of Amendment in another place, to have it shown that there are such burdens that would not properly come under loss but would be properly classified under the heading of hardship, my right hon. Friend would see no objection, if the promoters thought fit, to an Amendment in another place. But that is for consideration if there is evidence that there is such a class that does not come under loss but could be legitimately quantified in terms of money.
I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the House that in relation to the compensation that could be payable to the farmers displaced there is no difference between Clause 32 and the Amendment. I come to the bigger problem, though bigger only in terms of general legislative import. I refer to the question whether this compensation should be as of right as opposed to being discretionary. I shall not take up the very legitimate technical faults found by the hon. Member for Fulham with the draft in its present form—I hope to find stronger reasons against the draft than the technical ones which, of course, are, nevertheless, still there.
It looks so easy to suggest altering the third word in Clause 32 from "may" to

"shall". It looks so easy to suggest that there should be some arbitration tribunal. The fact is that the argument put forward by my hon. Friends would, for those farmers affected by the Diddington scheme, make a very considerable change from the general law of compensation as it is already in being.
It is a big matter to make a fundamental change in the law of compensation even for the limited number of people affected by this scheme. I agree, of course, that no decision made by the House this evening would have any effect on the general law. Just as a precedent will not bind us tonight, so any precedent made this evening will not bind any future legislation, and will not, of course, bind the Government. But, despite that, I do suggest it would be most unwise for the House, in this Private Bill, to make a major departure from present compensation law.
It is quite wrong for my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South to pray in aid the Tryweryn precedent. The Tryweryn precedent was introduced by the Committee with a special caveat, that it should not be treated as a precedent. It was said by the Select Committee when it considered the Liverpool Corporation Bill:
The Clauses which have been put in concerned with compensation should not be regarded as a precedent for future legislation when the circumstances will almost certainly be different.
That could not be more explicit.
The House should know that this whole question of whether compensation for farmers displaced by this sort of scheme should be as of right or should be discretionary is not going by default. I understand that the N.F.U. is proposing to put forward its proposals to alter the basis from discretionary to mandatory to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Surely the right thing to do is to wait till that case has been put forward and to wait till it can be fully considered and fully discussed and only then to decide whether there is a justification for a change of the general law.
The House should remember that there is absolutely no evidence brought before us that individuals covered by this sort of discretionary compensation


have suffered loss in the past. The House will have heard the assurance by the promoters of the Bill that the intention is to give liberal treatment. The House has heard the assurance from me that there is as much power in Clause 32 of the Bill to provide compensation as there would be in the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend and hon. Members associated with him in it. The Amendment, if it were introduced despite all this, would go far further for these few farmers than the law covering all the other farmers in this country.
I would repeat that the case for altering the compensation law from discretionary to mandatory is going to be put forward and can be considered then, but I do suggest that it would be very wrong to make a drastic departure of this sort in the general law in a Private Bill. If the law does need altering let it be fully and properly considered and argued.
Finally, I must repeat that I am advised that farmers here involved will not suffer one jot by Clause 32 going through un-amended in the way proposed. As for what the House should now do, I can only say that my right hon. Friend has found the Bill satisfactory as it stands. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. If it is I hope that it will not be accepted.

Mr. Corfield: I have listened with great interest to the comments of my hon. Friend and of hon. Members opposite. Though I am bound to say that I am much more persuaded by the argument directed to procedure than to the merits, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir HARRY LEGGE-BOURKE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO MAKE ADVANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF VESSEL.)

Question again proposed, That "eighteen" stand part of the Clause.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Willey: When the debate was interrupted, at seven o'clock, I was dealing with the Chandos Committee and saying that I had two points to raise. The first point I raised was that that Committee might well have come to its conclusions—indeed, it must have come to its conclusions—with some reservations and qualifications about which we know nothing. In the absence of this information it is extremely difficult to come to any firm conclusions upon the recommendations themselves. When we are considering the advance of £18 million from public funds we really cannot accept that position.
Having given the junior Minister time to be here, I will proceed to the second point, hoping that he will inform the Minister of this point when the Minister joins us in our discussions.
The second point that I raise about the Chandos Committee is that we do not know and there is no evidence to indicate that the Committee had before it any information about Eagle Airways. The question of the Cunard Company being involved in air transport and in particular in trans-Atlantic air transport was not considered by the Chandos Committee at all, and this is a matter which must affect our views about the moneys which ought to be advanced for the "Q.3" project. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not with us, because he knows that I am replying to matters which he raised in answering the debate. It places us in great difficulty when a Minister at a few minutes to seven o'clock tries to conclude the debate and then has not the courtesy to come to hear the reply. He is not only discourteous to my hon. Friends but also now to the whole Committee.
If the right hon. Gentleman were here I am sure that he would concede that his major point, perhaps, was that without this substantial public subvention the British might have to retire from the express passenger service in the North Atlantic, but this was the question which was expressly excluded from the consideration of the Chandos Committee. All that the Committee could endeavour to answer was the question of "how". It was not asked whether such a vast commitment of public moneys was justifiable.
In these circumstances, therefore, we need far more from the right hon. Gentleman, if he were here, in justification of his essential argument that without this subvention we should have to retire from the trans-Atlantic express passenger service. All that the right hon. Gentleman did in support of his case was to make citations from his Second Reading speech. I do not want to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman but, as he is now graciously joining us, I would tell him that if a Minister makes a bad Second Reading speech it does not help us in Committee to repeat that speech. But that is all that the right hon. Gentleman did in his appearance at the Dispatch Box. But the first of these major questions which face us, and which he did not endeavour to answer, is the assumption upon which this public money is being supplied to the Cunard Company, and that assumption is that the enterprise is commercially justifiable.
The new circumstances which now face us are that Mr. Bamberg and Sir John Brocklebank have given evidence in support of Eagle Airways. It seems from their reply that they do not regard this as an enterprise which is commercially justifiable. That is the only interpretation that we can put upon their words. They were unwilling to finance it.
Then there is other evidence. Reference has been made in debate to the leading article in The Times. The interesting thing about that leader is that it indicates that there is a difference of opinion in the board of Cunard itself. I am quite sure that this is true. The Minister has not denied this and I think that we can assume that The Times would not have published such information by way of an editorial unless it was

well-informed. If it be a fact, as we must assume, that the Cunard board itself is not satisfied that this enterprise can be commercially justifiable, this is a further new circumstance.
What surprised me about the Parliamentary Secretary—we welcome him to our debates and hope that he will get off to a better start when we reach later Amendments—was that when I asked him about Eagle Airways he said that there had been no discussions with the Cunard board. But, surely, if £18 million is being advanced there should be the closest consultation. If £18 million were being advanced to a nationalised corporation, would there be discussions? What would happen to a Minister who said that there were to be no discussions?
So we have the position, apparently, that there are two new circumstances. The first is that there appears to be a difference on the Cunard board itself about whether this enterprise is worth while. Secondly, it is clear that the Cunard group has been carrying out operations which are bound to affect this enterprise and which could well turn this enterprise from being one which was commercially attractive to one which was commercially unattractive—without any discussion or consultation with the right hon. Gentleman.
In the proceedings before the Air Transport Licensing Board, the spokesmen for the Cunard group, Mr. Bamberg and Sir John Brocklebank, made it clear that they bad proceeded to the purchase of the two Boeings without even obtaining a licence from the Board. They were asked about it, and they said that they had contracted to purchase. They also said that the contract to purchase had an escape clause which terminated on 7th June, and that they had no intention of taking any advantage of that clause. So, at any rate, Cunard Eagle Airways is in a position to proceed with the purchase without obtaining a licence to run the Boeings across the Atlantic.
It was further able to say "Looking ahead as far as 1964, we anticipate that we shall then proceed to the purchase of V.C.10's." This is a matter which is relevant to our discussion on this Amendment. It is relevant in two senses. In so far as it affects the judgment that we take about whether the sum should


be £18 million or £12 million, we are entitled to know, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to know, how this purchase was financed. We all know, of course, that there is a difference between purchasing a couple of aircraft and purchasing a ship, but as this is affecting the resources of the company and as this is a reflection of the position of the Cunard Company, maybe, in raising money, we are entitled to know about it. Any person exercising prudent commercial judgment would know, but the right hon. Gentleman does not know. This seems to be a flippant, frivolous disregard for substantial sums of public money.
As to the second way in which the transaction is relevant and important, when Mr. Bamberg and Sir John Brocklebank were questioned at the inquiry before the Board, it was suggested to them that Cunard Eagle Airways was taking these steps to share in the prize—the money to be obtained from trans-Atlantic air services. It was even suggested responsibly to Mr. Banberg and Sir John Brocklebank that they were taking this step as an attempted rescue operation against the failing fortunes of the Cunard Company. Is this so?
8.45 p.m.
We are entitled to know whether the Minister has considered what effect this proposed air service will have on the commercial prospects of the new liner, and also what consultations he has had with the board of the Cunard Company to discover its motives in wanting to enter this air traffic. In the past few days we have had the annual meeting of the Cunard Company. It is clear that many of the commercial assumptions made by the company have been proved wrong. That was practically admitted by Sir John Brocklebank in his statement to the meeting. I am not saying that he could have forecast them correctly.
There is, however, a third factor. We want to know what evidence was put before the Chandos Committee, because that Committee could base its conclusions only on the evidence presented to it. I gather that the case for the Government is that the proposal for the new liner and the proposal of the company to buy these two aircraft are two separate things, and that we should divorce them. That is not the view of the board of the company

or of Sir John Brocklebank, because Sir John went out of his way to quote Sir Percy Bates, who was Chairman nineteen years ago. He recalled that Sir Percy had said that sea and air services were complementary and that the one must have an effect upon the other. Sir John added that the board had now been able to take the steps envisaged nineteen years before, and that the two services were commercially complementary.
The Minister is being unfair to himself and to his intellectual ability if, for facility in debate, he says that these two things are entirely separate, when the Cunard Company itself regards them as being complementary. He pays no regard to the stake which the company, in common with most other shipping lines, is putting into civil aviation as an insurance against meagre returns in shipping.
This factor is something which should affect our judgment on the amount of money to be advanced from the public purse to the Cunard Company, but the right hon. Gentleman has not tried to answer these questions. All the factors have been recognised by Sir John Brocklebank as relevant, but all the right hon. Gentleman says is, "Well, I have not discussed this with the Cunard Company. All I am doing is to provide £18 million from the public purse. Why should anyone cavil or question me?"
Several hon. Members have said that this is an exceptional case, that it is only being done for the Cunard Company, where there are particular circumstances. But the right hon. Gentleman says, dramatically and rhetorically, "Are we to throw our hands in on the express trans-Atlantic passenger service?" But the view of the Chamber of Shipping is that this proposition is a pattern for further cases, and that what is good for Cunard may well be good for other shipping lines. This is a new consideration—something which was not put to the Chandos Committee. That is why the arguments advanced by several of my hon. Friends are relevant. If £18 million is to be tied up in this case it will make it more difficult for money to go, justifiably, elsewhere. We have to regard this on a wider scale. If we talk of subsidising a certain line we must bear in mind other lines whose competitors are subsidised. This is not particular to the trans-Atlantic run. It is therefore


relevant to see how great is the national interest in this run, as compared with other services which we run in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Marples: Can the hon. Member give some examples?

Mr. Willey: I am not going to give examples.

Mr. Marples: Why not?

Mr. Willey: I am relying on the general case put by the Chamber of Shipping.

Mr. Marples: It would help the Committee if the hon. Member gave some examples of subsidised competition which is as fierce as that which exists on the North Atlantic run.

Mr. Willey: That is not what I said. The right hon. Gentleman is too clever by half. I said that other lines were competing against subsidised competition. If the Minister wants to controvert that statement he will have another opportunity later on. I ask him to consult the Chamber of Shipping on this matter. I say that in almost every line or service we are operating against shipping which is subsidised in one form or another.
The express passenger service is subsidised on one ground only by the United States, and that is defence. I have not heard anything about defence in regard to this matter. I should like to know whether defence considerations enter into it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us.

Mr. Martin Maddan: A specious argument.

Mr. Willey: It is not a specious argument; it is very relevant, and I will tell the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) why. We are now concerned with defence services within N.A.T.O. and I should have a very serious argument with the United States if they were not prepared to discuss these matters through N.A.T.O. The right hon. Gentleman is so slippery that he would not think of this. He is very slippery in escaping from any point I put to him, but he cannot face this. The remarkable thing is that this was a straightforward opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to do what he has been pressed to do by shipping interests supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee,

namely, to raise this matter nationally and to say that if these are defence costs they should be discussed through N.A.T.O., in order to ascertain what the appropriate defence costs are. If it is to the advantage of America to load defence costs on to its trans-Atlantic express liner, it affects us, and the provision we make, which is something which should be discussed within N.A.T.O. We cannot understand why the Government have never had the initiative to take this step, in spite of its being raised repeatedly by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
I want to return to the statement of the General Council of the Chamber of Shipping which, after referring to the fact that the Government had decided to help the Cunard Company, went on to say:
It follows that the Government should consider other cases where equally urgent reasons can be shown for Government help.
I gather that the earlier intervention by the right hon. Gentleman was to deny that. That is a matter between him and the Chamber of Shipping. But if the Chamber of Shipping says to us, "We do not accept this as a case for which there is no parallel; on the contrary, now that the Government have intervened to subsidise shipping in the particular respect of the Cunard 'Q.3', we want other cases to be considered," I should have thought that we needed a broad inquiry as to what commitments might be involved before settling the amount in this case.
For those reasons it seems clear that nobody except the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—who apparently has no financial interest in the Cunard Company but who appears to have been bought entirely by that company—and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard), who has a constituency interest, has any enthusiasm for the Bill. There are several matters about which we have no information and about which we ought to have information before we can make a judgment.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the best thing to do is to adjourn further consideration of the Bill—which will enhearten the Patronage Secretary and relieve him of many of his difficulties—and again consult the


Cunard Company to find out what the position is about its available resources and to await the decision about Eagle Airways, because we do not yet know what the position is to be.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman should be straightforward in his discussions with the Chamber of Shipping and be in a position to discuss this matter frankly without the commitment of £18 million. For those reasons, and in the national interest, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree not to proceed further now, but to discuss the matter and then to return to the Committee.

Mr. Diamond: I have already had the opportunity to address the Committee, but I want to invite the Minister to return to the one topic which he owes it to his stature and integrity to deal with more specifically. That is the question of whether this company has or could find the funds required. The Minister has said many times that this is a wrecking Amendment, and other hon. Members have supported him in that view. It is a wrecking Amendment only if the £6 million, by which we suggest the amount should be reduced, cannot be found by Cunard. If Cunard cannot find it, then the proposal that the amount should be reduced by £6 million would mean that the scheme could not continue.
We are saying that Cunard can find the amount and the Parliamentary Secretary has removed whatever doubt there was. He said quite specifically that the probable explanation for the apparent irreconcilability of the authoritative statement of the Minister on the one hand, and the authoritative statement of the chairman of the company, on the other, was that Cunard was saying that it did not have the money available out of its existing resources and did not want to borrow, or anything like that. The Minister dealt with this point very clearly and fully when he said that the story started when Cunard told the Government that it could not find enough capital either from its own resources or by borrowing on the market.
"Borrowing on the market" means going to the money market and saying, "We have certain assets; we are prepared to charge them in order to borrow money for certain developments which

we wish to pursue." The Parliamentary Secretary said that the company did not wish to charge its assets for this purpose and that was why the Minister was justified in saying that it did not have the resources. But the Minister said precisely the opposite and said that it could not borrow on the market, that is to say, it could not offer the security and get the money.
We really ought to know which it is. This may be a mistake and even the Minister may not know what is in the Chandos Report and may not know what evidence was submitted to the Chandos Committee. He told me that there was a distinguished chartered accountant on the Committee and that that was why I should accept, hook, line and sinker, what the Committee reported. Of course there was a distinguished chartered accountant on the Committee, but I would bet £3½ million to ¼d. that he did not accept anything without getting evidence of it. No distinguished chartered accountant does. I am not a distinguished chartered accountant, but I am not accepting anything without the evidence, and the evidence I have is that in his maiden speech at that Box the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Minister was utterly wrong and was misleading the Committee and that the sole reason why the Bill was introduced was that Cunard could not find the money. Cunard's chairman said that it could, and one or other is misleading this Committee in a disgraceful manner.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I shall not keep the Committee long. I want to press the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire (Mr. Diamond). The Committee is entitled to a clearer answer than we have had so far. If the Minister is not ready to reconsider what has been said, I shall cheerfully vote against him, because, having listened to every word of every speech since the beginning of the debate, the Minister has utterly failed to convince me, my hon. Friends, and many of his hon. Friends.
I can adduce no new argument. I can only give my impression as a friend of the shipping industry who follows its fortunes, who knows the divisions which exist in the shipping industry about this venture on which the Government are engaged, and who is bound to say that


the Minister is now asking for £18 million with an argument which has never before been placed before the Committee. Do we need a weekly express service across the Atlantic? No one has answered that question. The Minister has assumed that it does not need answering. He has assumed that it is proved before it is stated.
The right hon. Gentleman has assumed, and his argument has been proceeding on the basis, that this is 1934, and that because in 1934 we built two ships which could ply the Atlantic in 4½ days between the Ambrose Lighthouse and the Scilly Isles, or whatever the boundaries were, at a time when there was no commercial flying, we need to continue to do that today. The argument has been put time and again from these benches. Anybody interested in speed today will go by air.
The Minister said that the French and the Americans had done this. I ask about another maritime nation. What about the Dutch? Where do they stand? Does the Minister know the policy of the Dutch Holland America Line? It is building 15,000, 20,000 and 30,000-ton vessels, cutting out first-class and tourist class, and having one-class vessels and making a roaring success of them. They are not crossing the Atlantic in 4½ days. They are doing it in seven days, and they are filled to capacity. Are we building prestige symbols, or are we a commercial trading nation which should build ships which will pay?
This argument has never been put by the Minister. He did not put it to Chandos and, because he did not, Chandos did not answer it. Chandos said, "Assuming that we are told to have a service like we had in 1934, how best can we do it?" And the answer was "We must have a 75,000-ton ship". That was the question Chandos asked, and the question he answered.
We cannot maintain a weekly express service without two of these vessels. The Minister can keep going for the next five years with the "Queen Elizabeth", but what will happen after that? What the Minister is committing us to now on the basis of this argument of a weekly express service is another expenditure of £18 million when he wants to replace the "Queen Elizabeth". Otherwise, there

is no case for coming to the Committee and saying that this sum of money is required for a vessel of this size.
I have heard what has been said about the argument the Minister has put today, the argument he put on Second Reading, and the argument put by Sir John Brocklebank at the hearing before the International Air Transport Authority. I do not see how the Minister can escape from the fact that either he misled the House on Second Reading, or, alternatively, that he was so slipshod that he did not know the facts. It is one or the other. Let us be clear about this. He did not actually say so, but he left the House with the impression that the Cunard Company could not raise this money. I went away with that impression. I listened to most of the Second Reading debate, and that was the impression I got, as did most hon. Members.
The Chandos Committee's Report implied that the Cunard Company could not put more than this amount of money into this project. That can be read two ways if one is clever. The significant words are "into this project". Reading it again in the light of what came out when Sir John Brocklebank gave evidence, I can see how the Minister can get up this evening and justify that this is what he meant—but it is not the impression he gave.
Cunard says that it was not willing to invest—or that it could not invest—more than £12 million in this project. The right hon. Gentleman will rely on the words "in this project". But everyone in this Chamber with a reputation for fair-mindedness will know that the impression given by the Minister was that the company could raise only £12 million.

Mr. Marples: Mr. Marples indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head now, but I can only tell him what everyone in the Chamber believes. It is his own reputation which will suffer if he tries to deny it.
We now know, as a result of the evidence given by Sir John Brocklebank, that the company could raise the money, but was unwilling to do so because it did not think that this was a commercial risk. That is an entirely different argument. The Minister stands convicted either of


sliding over this, so that he gave the impression of misleading us, or of not knowing the facts. If it is the second, it is culpable on the part of the Government to enter into an arrangement with the Cunard Company when the Government and the company are telling different stories. The Government have not tied up their arrangements with the Cunard Company if they cannot agree so that both tell the same story. "It does not matter what we say," said Lord Melbourne. "so long as we say the same thing." The Cunard Company and the Government cannot say the same thing for five minutes at a time.
We are being asked to find money on a case which is entirely unproved, and I strongly resent it. One reason why the Committee has not come out more strongly against the Bill is that too many people tend to regard the workers as children. They think that because there is a bait of a 75,000-ton ship offered they cannot oppose. I oppose, and I will willingly go to any shipyard area in the country and explain why. This case has not been proved. I am anxious, willing and desirous, as a friend of the shipping industry, that more money should be devoted to the industry. If it has to come by Government subsidy, well and good. But there are better and other ways of providing the money and better and other ships on which it could be spent. I say that the Government have made out no case at all and the Minister has failed in his duty to the Committee to prove a case. Therefore, I think that we ought to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: I shall not venture to detain the Committee longer than is necessary, but we have to consider what has happened during this debate. To begin with, is it not significant that very few hon. Members opposite rallied to the support of the Minister? Indeed, apart from the "heavenly twins", the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard)—one a director of a subsidiary concern who, apparently, has not contributed any finance to the project but hopes to gain something from it, and the other with a constituency interest of a somewhat remote character, not necessarily associated with the building of the ship—

there has been hardly a speech from the other side on the subject before the Committee.
No doubt there is time for them to do so, and there may be other hon. Members who wish to make a contribution, but my reason for rising is that the Minister—I must choose my words carefully in view of what happened earlier on—has either deliberately or unwittingly sought to evade the issue. He has failed completely to answer the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It is remarkable that one can address oneself to the facts over and over again, in Committee or in the House, during a debate, and yet make no impact on the minds of hon. Members opposite. Either they refuse to listen, or they ignore the suggestions made to them.
What are the facts which have come before us in this debate? The first is this, and it is unchallengeable. The Cunard Steamship Company was not short of funds; neither is it short of funds now. That is the first unassailable fact. The second is that, in order to replace a vessel of this size, even if it requires a subvention, it need not be a subvention of this character, and the reason is obvious. I ventured to point out to the Committee earlier, as indeed other hon. Members have done, that according to the Cunard Company's balance sheet—and surely this is a fact—the company has £16 million available in its own funds for the purpose of capital replacement. Not a word was said about that by hon. Members opposite. Reference was made to £14 million, I think by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and I believe by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and the assumption was that this was the whole of the funds available in the coffers of the Cunard Company for replacements.
What are the facts? There is £16 million available for replacements, and £15 million worth of investments plus nearly £4 million cash at bank. There are general reserves or general assets of £55 million. The argument that has been adduced in support of this project is the one that we require a ship of this character. I should imagine that the answer to that is simply this. If the Cunard Company really believes that in


the next ten or twenty years a passenger ship of this character is required in the North Atlantic, why then does the company create this subsidiary company of Eagle Airways in order to carry passenger traffic by air? Obviously, carrying passenger traffic by air is in competition with the steamship line. Obviously the company believes in the favourable future of the one or the other.
In my opinion, the Cunard Company is not quite sure of itself, and I should not be at all surprised if the idea of the second "Queen" came, not from the Cunard line, and I am pretty well satisfied not from the shareholders of the Cunard line, because there is no evidence of that, but from the Government, and for this reason. The Prime Minister, at the last General Election, injected into the election manifesto a promise about two "Queens", and in a half-hearted fashion the Government are trying to live up to the promise they made. Will the Minister be good enough and decent enough—I put it quite bluntly to him, with no reference to his integrity. I do not doubt his integrity. I do not doubt the integrity of hon. Members opposite, although I have a little suspicion about the hon. Member for Gillingham.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order. This is about the third time that the right hon. Gentleman has made an absolutely disgusting imputation. I have declared my interest. I must ask for the protection of the Chair against any further imputations of that type.

The Temporary Chairman (Major Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): I think that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) heard either the Chairman of Ways and Means or myself give a very clear Ruling about imputations on hon. Members' integrity. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Shinwell: All right, I withdraw it, although I think that the hon. Member for Gillingham is unduly sensitive.

Hon. Members: No.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is only one way to withdraw, and that is unconditionally.

Mr. Shinwell: I am quite prepared to withdraw if the Chairman suggests

it, but not for the political infant opposite.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Maddan: If the right hon. Member will not withdraw for the "political infant" as he calls my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), will he withdraw for the honour and tradition of this Chamber and of the Chair?

Mr. Shinwell: What I was about to say when I was unnecessarily interrupted was that the hon. Member for Gillingham is unduly sensitive. Consider what has been said about me in this House, not only since the last General Election but over a period of more than thirty years. I have been castigated, lambasted and abused and that has created a considerable impression in my mind, yet hon. Members opposite get excited and consumed with anxiety if someone ventures to detect defects in their characters. I do not put it higher than that.
I was saying that I do not for a moment doubt the integrity of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, but I plead with them for heaven's sake tell us the truth.
When the Minister was replying to the debate he talked about heavy subsidisation of foreign shipping. I have dealt with that in this House over the years. I believe that I know as much about it as any other hon. Member. I know about the heavy subsidisation of the United States. That goes back very far indeed. A remarkable thing about subsidisation by foreign Governments of foreign shipping is that it is done for strategic reasons, as in the case of the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was quite right about that. We know about the Liberty ships and so on and we know that that has a bearing on this matter.
Flags of convenience and flags of discrimination are the real bogy for the ship owners of this country, as the Chamber of Shipping will tell hon. Members and as they could be told by Sir John Brocklebank or Sir Colin Anderson, who knows as much about shipping in this country as anyone. Why do they continue this nefarious practice in the United States? It is for strategic


reasons. What do they care about the British mercantile marine so long as they can uphold their mercantile marine, at very high costs with wages more than we can pay and more favourable conditions than are to be found in British ships—which makes American shipping very costly?
It is not only for strategic reasons that they subsidise heavily, but also because American shipping companies have not the financial facilities which are available to companies like the Cunard line. I wonder whether that came before the Chandos Committee and whether it examined the position meticulously to ascertain the facts about the financial assets of foreign shipping companies. Does anyone suppose for a moment that the Dutch or French shipping companies have assets similar to those of the Cunard line? Let them inquire. That probably is the main reason why foreign Governments subsidise their shipping.

Mr. Maddan: Will the right hon. Member develop his argument in relation to the American shipping companies?

Mr. Shinwell: I have said all that is necessary to be said about that.

Mr. Maddan: Not at all.

Mr. Shinwell: When we have the debate on shipping and shipbuilding which has been promised we can go into that more thoroughly.

Mr. Maddan: Will the right hon. Member be more precise? Following his argument about foreign shipping companies—he was speaking particularly of American shipping companies and said that they have not assets such as those available to the Cunard—will he spell out the details?

Mr. Shinwell: I shall be interested if the hon. Member can inform me of any American shipping company which has assets of £55 million, £16 million available for replacement, investments of £15 million, with cash at the bank of nearly £4 million and property and interests worth £4 million. I think that is quite sufficient for the purpose.

Mr. Maddan: Will the right hon. Gentleman examine that position in comparison with the United States?

Mr. Shinwell: I appreciate that over a long period of years, even before the First World War—and I am thinking of the Matson Line—the American Government subsidised shipping. But, as I have said, the reason was partly strategic and partly because American shipping costs are extremely high and they are unable to provide replacements to the extent—

Mr. Maddan: rose—

Mr. Shinwell: I will not give way at the moment.

Mr. Maddan: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member should not remain standing if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) does not give way.

Mr. Shinwell: On the question of the subsidisation of foreign shipping by foreign Governments, we must consider what would have happened if the Minister had told hon. Members simply that the Cunard line had no money, that they were very hard up but that they wished to replace their ships, irrespective of whether it was another "Queen". Perhaps it could have been a ship of a smaller type. Then hon. Members would have sympathised with the Minister and with the Cunard Company.
But it is obviously, equally, that hon. Members would have addressed themselves to the needs of other ship owners and shipbuilders. There has been a great deal of talk about the other ship owners not having made application. What is the position of some of them? Take, for example, the Royal Mail Steamship Company, one of the best in this country and in the world. It has spent more than £16 million—and in Belfast with Harland and Wolff—over a period of years building three fine vessels.
At that company's meeting the other week, Mr. Bowes, the chairman, announced that there would be no dividend. The company's prospects are bleak, apart from cruises and in some other ways. He was hoping that the Government would boost that trade. What about the "Canberra", about which we have heard so much? It is a vessel of about 40,000 tons and it was paid for by the P & O line—£16 million—without asking for a penny from the Government. Where did that company get the money?


It got it, of course, from the shareholders or by going into the money market. That is the normal process. I do not want to inject too much politics into this, but by the normal capitalist processes there should be none of this pleading for public money for private enterprise.
The P & O company went to its shareholders or to the money market. That happens with other companies. What is the result of these companies going to that market? Do they get the money at 6¾ per cent.? Not on your life. They pay 8 per cent. or even 8¾ per cent.—but they get it.
Consider Eagle Airways, of which the hon. Member for Gillingham is one of the exalted directors. No doubt he was promoted by Mr. Bamberg, about whom we have heard a great deal this afternoon and who has admitted that there is a close link between Eagle Airways and the Cunard Company. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course."] But that was denied—even by Government Front Bench spokesmen. I know that it has been suggested that one of the reasons why we are fighting this aspect of the Bill is that we are afraid of the repercussion on the British nationally-owned airlines. Nothing of the sort. There may be some case for competition, even in the air. I will not dispute that, any more than I dispute the need for occasionally subsidising distressed industries, as long as the money is to be wisely spent and wisely distributed.
That is not our case. Our case is simply that, having accepted the Bill on Second Reading—I admit that freely—we are seeking not to wreck it but to conserve the nation's finances. Where is the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)? Where is the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell)? Where are the other hon. Members who announce from time to time their readiness to strangle the Government because of the Government's inflationary tendencies? Where are they? Here is their opportunity.
What is to be done about this? I suggest that the Minister should rise and tell the Committee that the Cunard Line has all the money it requires for this purpose; or if it has not sufficient money, that there is a way out. Let Cunard abandon this project of Eagle Airways, which will cost £6 million if not more, and use the £6 million to help to replace

the old "Queens" by building a new "Queen". That is very simple. That is ail the company has to do.
What about Eagle Airways? I make a suggestion, and do not charge the director anything for this advice. I suggest that company should go into the market and try to raise the money. This debate will help. The company is pleading poverty, pleading that it cannot raise the money. What nonsense that is. I know very little about business methods and business affairs, but I venture the opinion that if a sound project is presented to the City of London, the City will lap it up. The Eagle Airways project is either "phoney" or sound. I am beginning to think that it is a "phoney" project.
Why does not the Minister rise and satisfy the Committee by giving us a modicum of the truth? Let him tell the Cunard Company where it gets off. Let him give Cunard the £12 million but not £18 million. Look how generous we are—£12 million loan at 6¾ per cent. when in the market Cunard would have to pay 8 per cent. for the money, if the company could raise the money at all. A sum of £3½ million is to be given, never to be returned. That is a gift. We shall never see it again. Let the Minister accept our Amendment, which is not a wrecking Amendment. He will have his Bill and Cunard will have the ship. It may be good, bad or indifferent but we shall have something for our money, although not control. We come to the question of control later.

Mr. P. Williams: Would it not be much simpler for the Minister to accept the obvious consensus of opinion of the House, to redraft the terms of reference of the Chandos Committee and to start all over again?

Mr. Shinwell: I was about to say,
Out of the mouth of…babes and sucklings…
A Daniel has come to judgment. I accept that suggestion. Will the Minister do that? Everybody will be satisfied, even the Cunard Company, even Sir John Brocklebank. He will be satisfied. We have heard over and over again in the course of the debate that he has said that Cunard can find the money quite independently and that there is no inability to provide it. We have argued over and over again that Cunard can find


it. The Government ought to be ashamed of themselves. The next time any of my hon. Friends asks a question about the old-age pensioners and matters of that sort and the Government say that they have no money, I will remind them of the Cunard Company. The Minister had better get up now and tell us the truth.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: At this stage we should hear further from the Minister. This is my second intervention on the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will know, if he has much experience of proceedings in Committee, that in Committee it is not unusual for a Minister to rise three or four times on an Amendment of importance. At 6.45 this evening he made a speech which he obviously thought was a winding-up speech. He wanted us to arrive at a quick decision. He does not realise that his speech raised even more doubts. We want some clarification of what he said. That is the trouble with this Minister. Every time he talks he will not stick to his brief. The moment he leaves his brief he gets everybody into trouble.
One thing we want to know is whether he was correct in saying that the Chandos Committee was set up as a result of representations by the Cunard Line. That is the impression he left with me. If that is the impression he intended to convey—I think that he did convey it to the whole Committee—I say emphatically that it is wrong. It just is not true. It would be unfair to let it go out from the House of Commons that the Chandos Committee had anything to do with representations made by the Cunard Line. I will not bore the Committee with all the details of why the Chandos Committee was set up. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) was absolutely right: the terms of reference of the Chandos Committee were a millstone around everybody's neck. The setting up of the Committee had nothing to do with the Cunard Line's approach to the Government. In fairness to the company, the Minister should clarify that.
The second thing that the Minister did not tell us is this. When the Chandos Committee was sitting, did it know that the Cunard Line had money available in

the way that we now know it has, as evidenced by its interest in Eagle Airways? The Minister has the private confidential information. It is not asking too much if we ask him to disclose that part of it. We were told previously that we could not expect to learn what the evidence before the Committee was. We were told that it was so confidential. However, that part of it is not confidential. We are entitled to know that, because we have since learned that £6 million is available to the company. That is the second question the Minister should answer. That is an additional reason why he should rise again and reply to the debate.
I want to know also what discussions there have been with the Cunard Line, since the Chandos Committee reported, on the £6 million which has now come to light. Have the Government taken a dim view of this? Do they consider that the Chandos Committee should have had this evidence, if it did not have it?
Is what we have read in The Times today right? Does the Minister know anything about it? Will he give us his views on it? Is it the fact that the directors of the Cunard Line are now in grave doubts about the whole project? Are the Government aware of this? Is The Times overstating the case? Is The Times telling the truth? We are entitled to know, because we are being asked to agree to the loan of £18 million of public money. We are entitled to know whether it will be spent in the right way.
I will now ask the Minister another question. This is an additional reason why he should rise again. He said that United States and French lines are being very heavily subsidised and that it is, therefore, inevitable that this line has to be subsidised. An hon. Member opposite intervened when my right hon. Friend was speaking on this point. Is it not a fact that this is not the only line which is subsidised by these Governments? Many other lines are being subsidised as well. Can we now take it from the Government that, as a consequence of the Bill and all that it means as regards shipping, lines which are in competition with subsidised foreign operators will have the right to come to the Government and demand subsidies? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that? This is the case which has been made. It has been argued that other


shipping lines are being heavily subsidised by foreign Governments and we must help ours out. If it was only the North Atlantic line, I could understand the argument, but it is not. Almost every British shipping line is now facing subsidised competition.
I turn now to the size of the ship. It is said that we must have a 75,000-ton prestige liner. The Americans have not got one. The French have not got one. They are crossing the Atlantic with 55,000-ton liners, and I understand that they are doing extremely well. I wholeheartedly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said. The question of speed is absolutely irrelevant, and the Minister knows it, although in my view he does not know anything at all about shipping, otherwise he would not have made such stupid speeches as he has made.
A speedy Atlantic crossing is made by air. Those who cross the Atlantic by boat do not do so because they want to cross quickly. They cross by boat because they want to go in comfort, to read and to relax. That is a well understood fact today. Years ago it may well have been said that the quicker one got across the Atlantic the better and the best way for that was by boat. It is not so today. If speed is wanted, passengers go by air.
The Minister must understand that we are in Committee and that he can rise as often as he wants, provided that when he rises he gives us the answers to which we are entitled. I want the Minister quite clearly to understand that to many of us the Bill provides Government money for the wrong cause to the wrong people at the wrong time. He ought not fob us off with some of the stupid arguments that he has used in the past.

Mr. Marples: After the most courteous speech which I always get from the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I will respond to his invitation to speak again. The "United States" is 960 feet in length and weighs 53,330 gross tons. The "France" is of 60,000 gross tons. The Chandos Committee decided that 75,000 tons was the right size and tonnage for this ship.
In reaching that decision it had the assistance of the Yarrow Admiralty Research Department after it had exhaustively examined almost every range

and weight of ship. The Yarrow Admiralty Research Department has played a great part in the technical side of our shipbuilding industry. That was its advice to the Chandos Committee. That Committee accepted the advice, and recommended accordingly
The hon. Member asked whether what appeared in a leading article in The Times was right. I cannot, Sir Gordon, speak for The Times, and I have no intention of speaking for the leader writer of The Times. I do not know whether the article was right or wrong or where the newspaper got the information from—

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman could find out.

Mr. Marples: It is not for me to decide whether what the newspapers say—

Mr. Mellish: rose—

Mr. Marples: No, I shall not give way—

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. It is important, if we are to get some sort of cohesion of debate, to know something more about this. A statement has been made in The Times that the board of directors of the Cunard Company, which is to build the ship, is split on the issue, and has made a most serious allegation. I ask you, Sir Gordon, to bring some sense into this debate by asking the Minister to tell us whether the statement in The Times about the board of directors is right or wrong. It is as simple as that.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Marples: We are grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Bermondsey raised his point of order, but I do not think that it is for any Minister to defend any leading article in a newspaper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The hon. Gentleman said that this route is subsidised and other routes are subsidised, too. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said exactly the same thing—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Bermondsey allow me to make a reply, or does he intend to go on intervening? I am really trying to answer. I do hope that he will be courteous to me and will give me the


same chance as he had. I never interrupted him.
The real point is that this express Atlantic service is the most heavily subsidised shipping route in the world. The normal Atlantic service is not, and the Cunard competes there without a penny of Government money. This express service is the most heavily subsidised service in the world. I challenged the hon. Member for Sunderland, North to mention other routes that he had in mind, but he said, "Oh, the Committee knows that there are many of them"—but he did not say which they were. I repeat that this is the most heavily subsidised service—

Mr. Willey: I went further than that. I challenged the right hon. Gentleman to tell me of a liner service where we are competing with ships flying other flags where those ships are not subsidised in one form or another.

Mr. Marples: The assertion was made by the hon. Gentleman, not by me. He made the assertion—he must prove it. He must not adopt this negative attitude. He made a positive assertion, and all I asked of him was, "Can we have the proof?". Now he says, "Can you prove that it is not true?".
This is a wrecking Amendment—I am certain of that—and if it were carried this is what would happen. There would be no replacement of the "Queen Mary". No ship would be built, because the new "Queen Mary" could not face this heavily subsidised competition without some form of Government assistance. If the Opposition wishes to divide on this, then I suggest that at this stage we do divide, and the country will know the Opposition do not want this replacement.

Mr. Willey: I am sure that the Committee would be surprised if I did not respond to the right hon. Gentleman's challenge. I want to deal now with subsidised shipping, but, first, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why he has replied to none of the questions I asked him. He is the Minister in charge of the Bill. Shall we ever dispose of the Bill in this sort of way? I say again, because I do not think that hon. Members opposite are seized of the point, that here we are dealing with the advancing of £18 million from the Exchequer.

If this were being advanced to a nationalised corporation hon. Members opposite would be, quite properly, insisting upon further information—or some information. We cannot get it from the right hon. Gentleman.
I remind him again, we have raised the question of Cunard Eagle Airways. It is quite clear that this affects the issue we are discussing. All that the Government have said so far is that they have had no discussions with Cunard. That is all. We cannot get any information. We know—it is quite clear, because Mr. Bamberg and Sir John Brocklebank have said so—that Cunard Eagle Airways has bought two Boeings for £6 million.

Sir A. V. Harvey: It paid for them.

Mr. Willey: I know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has been courteous and helpful enough to give us some information about the purchase of the aircraft. Why cannot we get some information from the Government? It may be that the hon. Gentleman's surmise is correct. If it is correct it would be very helpful to the right hon. Gentleman's case if he could give it. As he will not give it, I do not think that his surmise is correct.
But here is a fact. There was an escape clause which gave Eagle Airways the opportunity to escape, and that runs till 7th June, but the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that Eagle Airways has said that it does not intend to take advantage of the escape clause. The Boeings are bought. We have no information as to how this transaction was financed. We are entitled to know.
It must be equally obvious that if the Cunard group is successful in its application then this will affect the commercial prospects of "Q.3". It must do. Or should I say it is arguable that it does? But we do not know at the moment whether this application will be successful. Would it not be better to await the event of the application?
I come to the further question I put to the Government. I asked the Government whether they had ever been consulted about this by Cunard, and the answer was, "No". But surely the Government ought to be consulted. What does the right hon. Gentleman think he is? An office boy? He is dealing with


£18 million. Who is he to be kicked around by? Has he no respect for himself and his office? Surely he ought to have been consulted. I do not know his views because he has not expressed them, but he could have said, "All right, go ahead with this transaction". But what disturbs me is that the Cunard group never thought of consulting the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman has the answer. He is the only member of the Committee who has the answer. What does the Chandos Committee know about this? I will hazard a guess: it knew nothing at all. It considered this purely as a shipping matter. It did not know that Cunard was to be both a shipping and an airways concern. It did not know that the objective the Cunard group had sought for nineteen years was coming to fruition.
The right hon. Gentleman says, of course, "We have got to regard these things separately. They have nothing to do with each other." That is not the view of the Cunard group, or of Sir John Brocklebank. His view is that these are complementary, and, of course, we all know that practically every big shipping line is trying to get into civil aviation, and quite properly. But this does affect the question whether "Q.3" is a commercial proposition or not. I am glad that the debate has been worth while because the right hon. Gentleman, for the first time, is nodding in agreement.

Mr. Marples: No.

Mr. Willey: If the right hon. Gentleman nods in an affirmative way to show disagreement, then we really must not continue this debate further. I thought that, at any rate, we had got one point home.
9.45 p.m.
I want to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman challenges me about on subsidised shipping. He has not answered this point. He is discussing this with the Chamber of Shipping now. The Chamber says, "We take note of the moneys that are being advanced, the £18 million, and the £3¼ million grant going to Cunard. We do not accept this as being exceptional. This may well be the pattern for aid to British industry. We recognise now that this is quite novel. The British Government are now

prepared to subsidise British shipping." This all comes out in the statement made by the Chamber of Shipping and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has given broad consideration to all this. This obviously affects the amount of moneys that we should properly advance to Cunard. The Government surely are not an inexhaustible source of funds to private enterprise. They should consider this in the light of new circumstances.
It was not the shipping lines that intervened. It was the Government. Hitherto, British shipping has said, "We can get along without subsidy. We do not want to be subsidised. We are in an international market and we have our own reasons for resisting support for British shipping by way of subsidy." But what the Chamber of Shipping is saying now to the Government is, "You have breached this and you are saying, 'Because this is a heavily subsidised express service across the Atlantic we must provide subsidy'." But this is quite new.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman says that this is quite new. This subsidy for express passenger services was started before I was born, in 1904.

Mr. Willey: It is quite new in this context. The right hon. Gentleman knows that well enough. Even in relation to express passenger trans-Atlantic services we have said that compared with the Americans and the French we are not subsidised. They are the only competitors we have on this service. Who else is there? But the Government are saying, "We are prepared to compete with the Americans and the French in subsidies". The Chamber of Shipping says, "If you are going to do that there are other cases where subsidies might be appropriate." Therefore, the Government should pursue discussions with the Chamber of Shipping before deciding on this amount. This was a matter on which the Chandos Committee was not asked to consider. The first issue that arises is this question of subsidised lines. In conceding the principle now that the British Government will compete with other countries in subsidies, other liner services must be considered.
To reply to the right hon. Gentleman's particular challenge to me, I will state what I have stated before. As far as I


am aware, in all the express liner services where we are competing with ships flying other flags we are competing with shipping which is subsidised in one form or another. I did not know that this was an issue between us but I concede that this trans-Atlantic service is more heavily subsidised than others. But this does not give us any escape from the general problem which now arises that if we are considering the relative subsidies and relative difficulties that British shipping is facing elsewhere, these ought to be considered before a decision is taken in a particular case.
My very real doubts about the action of the Government arise on this point. What the Chamber of Shipping has repeatedly said is that this is a matter which can be effectively dealt with only through international action. But this is what the right hon. Gentleman is not doing. That is why I put to him that in this case what is disturbing us more than anything else is that this was a field in which there was an opportunity, I believe, for effective international action, because this is a matter which affects N.A.T.O. The Americans provide all their subsidies to this trans-Atlantic express run on the ground of defence.

Because they make this provision on the ground of defence it would have been right and proper for this matter to be discussed through the N.A.T.O. Council. It ought to have been discussed there.

We are entitled to say to the Americans, "If this provision is being made on the ground of defence, we have to consider the complementary part that we play in Western defence." It would have been proper to come to an agreement with the Americans so that there would be more equity in the provision made on this route and so that we should be able to run the Cunarder on a trans-Atlantic express route without the present heavy subsidies.

Because the right hon. Gentleman has failed to answer any of these points—although he has had the courtesy to rise and try again—we still feel thoroughly dissatisfied with what he has said.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 94.

Division No. 176.]
AYES
[9.52 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fisher, Nigel
Jennings, J. C.


Aitken, W. T.
Fletcher-Cook, Charles
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Barter, John
Gammans, Lady
Leavey, J. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gardner, Edward
Leburn, Gilmour


Berkeley, Humphry
Glover, Sir Douglas
Litchfield, Capt. John


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Bingham, R. M.
Goodhew, Victor
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, Raymond
McLaren, Martin


Black, Sir Cyril
Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Box, Donald
Grimston, Sir Robert
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray


Bullard, Denys
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Montgomery, Fergus


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Noble, Michael


Cleaver, Leonard
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cole, Norman
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cooper, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Partridge, E.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hendry, Forbes
Peel, John


Cordle, John
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Corfield, F. V.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Coulson, J. M.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hocking, Philip N.
Pitman, I. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col, O. E.
Holland, Philip
Pitt, Miss Edith


Cunningham, Knox
Hollingworth, John
Pott, Percivall


Curran, Charles
Hopkins, Alan
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hornby, R. P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Deedes, W. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Rees, Hugh


de Ferranti, Basil
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Renton, David


Drayton, G. B.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Seymour, Leslie


Emery, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, M.


Errington, Sir Eric
James, David
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn




Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Whitelaw, William


Smithers, Peter
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wise, A. R.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Walder, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Storey, Sir Samuel
Walker, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Studholme, Sir Henry
Wall, Patrick



Tapsell, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Teeling, William
Watts, James
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. F. Pearson.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Awbery, Stan
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Skeffington, Arthur


Blyton, William
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Snow, Julian


Chetwynd, George
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Collick, Percy
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyan, Clifford
Stones, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sylvester, George


Deer, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thornton, Ernest


Dodds, Norman
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Tomney, Frank


Finch, Harold
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, John
Wade, Donald


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Neal, Harold
Wigg, George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Paget, R. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Parker, John
Willey, Frederick


Grey, Charles
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Grimond, J.
Pentland, Norman
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hannan, William
Randall, Harry
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Rankin, John
Woof, Robert


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Redhead, E. C.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Holman, Percy
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Zilliacus, K.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, William



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Cronin and Mr. McCann.

The Chairman: The Question is, That "eighteen" stand part of the Clause. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye". To the contrary, "No". I think that the "Ayes" have it.

Hon. Members: No.

The Chairman: Clear the Lobbies; lock the doors.

Mr. Callaghan: Did you say, "Lock the doors", Sir Gordon?

The Chairman: I am sorry; unlock the doors.

Sir J. Barlow (seated and covered): On a point of order. Do I understand that the doors were locked some time ago, Sir Gordon?

The Chairman: I inadvertently gave that order, but I cancelled it.

The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 89.

Division No. 177.]
AYES
[10.1 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bullard, Denys
Curran, Charles


Aitken, W. T.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Barter, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
de Ferranti, Basil


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Drayson, G. B.


Berkeley, Humphry
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Biggs-Davison, John
Cleaver, Leonard
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Bingham, R. M.
Cole, Norman
Emery, Peter


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, A. E.
Errington, Sir Eric


Black, Sir Cyril
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fisher, Nigel


Bossom, Clive
Cordle, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bourne-Arton, A.
Corfield, F. V.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Box, Donald
Coulson, J. M.
Gammans, Lady


Brewis, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Gardner, Edward


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gibson-Watt, David


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cunningham, Knox
Glover, Sir Douglas




Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Shaw, M.


Goodhew, Victor
Leavey, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Gower, Raymond
Litchfield, Capt. John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Green, Alan
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Smithers, Peter


Grimston, Sir Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaren, Martin
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maddan, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Tapsell, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray
Teeling, William


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hendry, Forbes
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Turner, Colin


Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Michael
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walder, David


Hocking, Philip N.
Partridge, E.
Walker, Peter


Holland, Philip
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wall, Patrick


Hollingworth, John
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hopkins, Alan
Percival, Ian
Watts, James


Hornby, R. P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Whitelaw, William


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pitman, I. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hughes Hallet, Vice-Admiral John
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wise, A. R.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pott, Percivall
Woodnutt, Mark


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Worsley, Marcus


Iremonger, T. L.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin



James, David
Rees, Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Renton, David
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Jennings, J. C.
Seymour, Leslie
Mr. Finlay.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)






NOES


Ainsley, William
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Skeffington, Arthur


Awbery, Stan
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Blyton, William
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Snow, Julian


Callaghan, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chetwynd, George
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cliffe, Michael
Kelley, Richard
Stones, William


Collick, Percy
Kenyon, Clifford
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Sylvester, George


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Symonds, J. B.


Deer, George
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Delargy, Hugh
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thornton, Ernest


Diamond, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Dodds, Norman
Manuel, A. C.
Tomney, Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Finch, Harold
Morris, John
Wade, Donald


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moyle, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold
Wigg, George


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Paget, R. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Parker, John
Willey, Frederick


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Grey, Charles
Pentland, Norman
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grimond, J.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Randall, Harry
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hannan, William
Rankin, John
Woof, Robert


Hayman, F. H.
Redhead, E. C.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Holman, Percy
Ross, William
Zilliacus, K.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hunter, A. E.

Mr. Cronin and Mr. McCann.

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put, That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from

the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 93.

Division No. 178.]
AYES
[10.11 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Noble, Michael


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhew, Victor
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Barlow, Sir John
Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Barter, John
Green, Alan
Partridge, E.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Berkeley, Humphry
Grimston, Sir Robert
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bingham, R. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bishop, F. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pitman, I. J.


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bossom, Clive
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pott, Percivall


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Box, Donald
Hastings, Stephen
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Rees, Hugh


Brewis, John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Renton, David


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hendry, Forbes
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hiley, Joseph
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bullard, Denys
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Seymour, Leslie


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Shaw, M.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hocking, Philip N.
Shepherd, William


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Holland, Philip
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hollingworth, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hopkins, Alan
Smithers, Peter


Cole, Norman
Hornby, R. P.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cooper, A. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cordle, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Coulson, J. M.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Teeling, William


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Iremonger, T. L.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
James, David
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Cunningham, Knox
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Turner, Colin


Curran, Charles
Jennings, J. C.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Walder, David


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Walker, Peter


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Wall, Patrick


Drayson, G. B.
Leavey, J. A.
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Watts, James


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Emery, Peter
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Whitelaw, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Finlay, Graeme
MacArthur, Ian
Wise, A. R.


Fisher, Nigel
McLaren, Martin
Woodnutt, Mark


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Worsley, Marcus


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest



Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Mr. E. Wakefield and Mr. Peel


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus



Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper (Ludlow)





NOES


Ainsley, William
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kenyon, Clifford


Awbery, Stan
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lawson, George


Blyton, William
Gourlay, Harry
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Grey, Charles
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Grimond, J.
McInnes, James


Callaghan, James
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Chetwynd, George
Hannan, William
Mallalieu, E. L. (Briggs)


Cliffe, Michael
Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, A. C.


Collick, Percy
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mellish, R. J,


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holman, Percy
Morris, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold


Deer, George
Hunter, A. E.
Paget, R. T.


Delargy, Hugh
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parker, John


Diamond, John
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Parkin, B. T.


Dodds, Norman
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Finch, Harold
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Randall, Harry


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Redhead, E. C.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)




Ross, William
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Wilkins, W. A.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Sylvester, George
Willey, Frederick


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Symonds, J. B.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Skeffington, Arthur
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thornton, Ernest
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Woof, Robert


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Tomney, Frank
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Snow, Julian
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Zilliacus, K.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wade, Donald



Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wainwright, Edwin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stones, William
Wigg, George
Mr. Cronin and Mr. McCann.

Orders of the Day — NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING BILL

Again considered in Committee.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "construction" to insert:
in the United Kingdom and subject to such conditions regarding sub-contracting and other work as the Minister may prescribe".
I think that it is clear that the difficulties which many people have felt about this Bill and in opposing it outright are due to the concern which they feel about the shipping and shipbuilding industries. When the pledge was first given, I think that most people first thought of the shipbuilding industry. The pledge to build two more "Queens" which the Prime Minister gave during the General Election was evocative in the sense that it brought back recollections of the aid given in the 'thirties to the building of the "Queens", memories of Lord Kirkwood and of the aid given later in different forms to shipbuilding and shipping.
It is in that light that we put forward the present Amendment. I do not wish to go at any length into the present condition of the shipbuilding industry, but if we look at the two Reports which have been published recently, we find that we have very good reasons for being concerned about the future of this great industry. The first of these Reports was that of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and we find this in the first of the conclusions:
The world shipbuilding industry is facing a major and probably prolonged recession.
Secondly,
There is no indication that the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry has on balance any marked technical or economic advantage over its major foreign competitors apart from its large home market.
In the more recent Report of the subcommittee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee about the prospects of shipbuilding, a disturbing picture is given of the immediate prospects of the shipbuilding industry. The Report calls our attention to the fact that:
A number of yards which build small and medium-sized ships are already feeling the pinch, and will soon have no work unless new

orders can be secured, and even the yards which build big ships are beginning to be affected.
It goes on to say:
The impact on particular areas is difficult to forecast as it depends to some extent on where new orders will be placed. It appears likely, however, that the fall in shipbuilding employment may be most severe in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Paragraph 22 states:
With such prospects the industry is clearly faced with a testing period which will be a challenge to management and men if the industry is to weather the storm and be prepared to take full advantages of the possibilities when demand recovers.
Bearing this background in mind, we put forward the present Amendment, and we have to consider the proposal in this Bill against that background. The support which is being given to the Cunard Company will undoubtedly be very welcome to one great British shipbuilding yard, but it will cause severe disappointment in five other yards. I can speak objectively about this, because the shipyard on the Wear is not one which could build a Cunarder, though we on the Wear are facing difficulties, too. What we think—and this is why we are putting forward this Amendment—is that if we are considering the aid that we are giving to the Cunard Company, not only on the grounds considered so far in our discussion of the first Amendment, but also as aid to shipbuilding—and I am sure that we need not differ unduly about this—the right hon. Gentleman will be anxious to see if possible that the aid should be spread. That is why, in a further Amendment which I believe, Mr. MacPherson, you do not intend to select, we make specific reference to the Local Employment Act, 1960. I refer to the Amendment in page 1, line 10, after "construction", insert:
in a United Kingdom shipyard but subject to conditions providing that as far as practicable engineering and other equipment will be supplied from other areas included in the list of development districts under the Local Employment Act, 1960".
There is an opportunity to do this in the case of shipbuilding because shipbuilding is an assembly industry. It depends on a host of ancillary industries and a whole pattern of sub-contracting. I know that the right hon. Gentleman can tell the Committee that it is extraordinarily difficult to provide for what we have in mind in moving this


Amendment. I am sure that he will share our anxiety that if this substantial aid is given—and given indirectly to assist shipbuilding—it should go so far as possible to those areas which are suffering particular redundancy.
That is why I have mentioned Scotland and Northern Ireland. Obviously the placing of this contract in either Scotland or Northern Ireland would directly affect only one of those areas. Both, says the Report, are likely to be badly affected. It is possible in providing aid to see that some of the aid shall go to a particular district and be shared by another, or other, districts. I concede at once to the right hon. Gentlement that it is difficult to provide for this by legislation. A tender is made and accepted, but one would hope that the Minister would use his good offices to see that, as far as possible and as far as reasonably could be done, help should be given to areas which might be particularly badly hit. That is why we have worded the Amendment in this way and not placed an obligation on the Minister by saying "The Minister may prescribe."
I hope, and I am sure that the Committee hopes, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment. If he accepts it, it will strengthen his hand in taking any action he feels able to take. This would help those of us in other shipbuilding areas, those who represent the five districts which will not secure the tender. Without trying to impose an impossible obligation on the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will accept this Amendment and that when the time comes he will try to exercise it by using his influence to see that in sub-contracting and other work the question of redundancy in other areas will be borne in mind.

Dame Irene Ward: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) with considerable apprehension. I do not want to be unfair because the problem of unemployment in shipbuilding areas places a tremendous responsibility on both sides of the Committee. When the hon. Member was speaking, however, I could not help wondering—as I noticed that in the Amendment he wishes to put all responsibility on the Minister

—whether there would not be precious little safeguard, should the Amendment be accepted, for the north bank of the Tyne, which has considerable subcontracting industries.
10.30 p.m.
There would be precious little safeguard that the sub-contracting facilities that exist and that are available on the north bank of the Tyne would be used if the implications contained in the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North are correct. I should like the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, or one of his hon. Friends who supports the Amendment, to tell me just what the Opposition has in mind. I should particularly like to hear the views of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) on this subject, for I have given that hon. Gentleman notice of my intention to mention his constituency in connection with these Amendments.
It is all very well putting the responsibility on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for trying to get as wide a spread as possible after the contract has been placed. But the terms used by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North in addressing the Committee made me so terribly apprehensive about my part of the world—the north bank of the Tyne—that I am wondering just what would be the result of those implications if the Amendment were accepted.
I understand, of course, that the second Amendment will not be called. May I point out, however, that that Amendment makes what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North wants much clearer than does the Amendment at present under discussion. However, when the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Local Employment Act every bit of me, every hackle I have—and I have plenty of them—rose up in defence of the north bank of the Tyne.
I fully appreciate that if the Bill becomes law, if the tender is placed and if the contract goes to some area other than the Tyne—and I still hope that Swan Hunter and Vickers-Armstrong are going to be fortunate—and if this Amendment is accepted and the responsibility is placed on my right hon. Friend, pressure may be exercised on the Minister by hon. Gentlemen opposite.


Although the Amendment does not mention the development areas, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned them.
I can imagine the pressure that will be put on the Minister. Hon. Members know only too well that sometimes I am not in favour of the Minister's actions, but I am tonight. I am just wondering whether the Minister would be in a position to throw the north bank of the Tyne to the lions, the tigers or the bears—or whatever the south bank of the Tyne might be.
If that were the case I should be absolutely against the Amendment. I wait with interest to see what the Minister has to say about this. Although I do not see the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West in his place, I should be interested to hear what he has to say on this subject, since he has put down his name in support of both Amendments. However, I want to know how the north bank of the Tyne is to be protected.

Mr. Willey: I know the north Tyne well enough not to wish to throw it to the bears or the lions. The purpose of the Amendment is to help the north Tyne. Supposing—as the hon. Lady and I do not believe—that the contract does not go to the Tyne but goes to the Clyde, and at the same time there are redundancies on the Tyne. We should like the Minister to be in a position to assist the Tyne by giving work, if possible steered to the firms which might subcontract and which the hon. Lady mentioned.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Member speaks with honeyed words. I know him well enough to realise that he can produce very honeyed words. It is all very well for him to say that he knows the north bank of the Tyne, but when he moved the Amendment he specifically referred to the Local Employment Act, and that Act does not affect the north bank of the Tyne. Let us suppose that on the North-East Coast we want some of the sub-contracting work. His Amendment would very cleverly take to the south bank all the sub-contracting work available for Tyneside. None would go to the north bank. I hope that my right hon. Friend will hold the ring fairly between the two banks of

the Tyne. I await his speech with great interest.
What did the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West, who is on the north bank of the Tyne, mean by signing an Amendment which must apply only to the south bank? I find that incomprehensible. I believe in straight speaking, and I should like to know exactly what we are committing ourselves to as a result of the Amendment.
The other issues in the debate have been all-embracing, but this Amendment deals specifically with shipbuilding areas. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West put his name to the Amendment. It may be that his name was put down without his being asked. I do not always see eye to eye with my right hon. Friend, but I know that he wants to be fair about this. With my colleagues from the north bank of the Tyne—excluding the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West—I do not want to have to take all the pressure which would be exerted from the overwhelming number of Socialist Members from the south bank. I want to protect the north bank. I do not want anything in the Bill which will be disadvantageous to the shipbuilding and sub-contracting areas which I and my colleagues have the honour to represent.
I hope that before we proceed much further we shall be told the intention of hon. Members opposite. If they had been permitted to move the second Amendment we might have had a clearer picture. It is very fortunate for the hon. Gentleman that the second Amendment is not to be called, because my language would have been much stronger than it has been. I therefore look forward to hearing the views of my right hon. Friend, and I hope that he will not sell the north bank down the river.

Mr. Deedes: I do not claim to represent either bank of the Tyne, but I must say that this argument illustrates one of my misgivings about the shape of the Bill. Although I share some of the misgivings of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I think that this Amendment is ill-conceived. As I see it, it takes us unnecessarily in the direction that I most mistrust—towards dividing administration by the Government and the Cunard Company in the


building as well as in the running of this ship. It offends the principle that has been supported on both sides that we should not interfere in the day-to-day administration of a nationalised industry—which we should most certainly get if this Amendment were accepted.
More seriously, this seems to me to aggravate one of the worst symptoms in the Bill, which is that both the Government and the company have a share in the business but neither has a full share of the risk or the administrative responsibility. That is how the worst decisions can be made. And when it comes to planting sub-contracts—which I can readily see will be subject to great political pressures, and for very good reasons—I think that having the Government in harness with the Cunard Company, as the Amendment would prescribe, would lead us into the most impossible position in the building of this ship.
I would only add that, unlike some hon. Gentlemen opposite, I incline to think that decisions of this kind are often best made in the board room. The board room has the mechanism for getting these things right. I do not say that it is always right, but it has the mechanism, and it has some very good instruments for shining the red light when things are going wrong. That mechanism has been a very stable friend to commerce and industry.
It is this collusion between the board and the Government that most suspect and fear in this kind of Measure, and it is just this kind of Amendment that will produce the most uneasy alliance between the two which brings out to me the very worst features of the Bill. As I think that this Amendment is calculated to bring out the least happy features of the Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist it.

Mr. Mellish: I am one of those who believe that one of the good purposes of the Amendment is to plead for certain areas. I do not deny that political pressures are inevitable. As in Northern Ireland there is now nearly 8 per cent. unemployment, as the people there face the threat that by the end of the autumn 50 per cent. of those now working in the shipyards will be sacked, and as those people cannot possibly find employment

elsewhere, there will obviously be political pressures.
I concede to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—who says that she does not want honeyed words—that she made a frank and honest speech. She wants security and safeguards for her own constituents—

Dame Irene Ward: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—not necessarily in my own constituency. I have ship repairing in my constituency—the biggest ship repairing yard in the world. We ourselves are not great sub-contractors, but the north bank of the Tyne is a great sub-contracting area.

Mr. Mellish: Then I will put it that the hon. Lady has certain vested interests locally that she wants to keep going—

Dame Irene Ward: That is right.

Mr. Mellish: It is a tragedy that those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are not here tonight to defend their own people. That is why I am speaking now. Every hon. Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency sits on the benches opposite, and this Bill is the very lifeblood and the the future of Northern Ireland. The ironic thing is that only about a fortnight ago we had a very stirring debate in which, I think, every Northern Ireland Member took part. They told their electors that they would fight to the last ditch to overcome unemployment, and so on—although at the end of the day, of course, they voted for the Government, and the Motion they put down was rather like a Loyal Address to the Queen. Nevertheless they criticised the position.
10.45 p.m.
I want tonight to get it on the record that Northern Ireland cannot be ignored in this matter. We do not know yet who will get this contract. That is the big question surrounding these debates. We in London cannot build the ship and we shall not get the contract. If the Clyde gets it, still it would be a tragedy indeed if some of the work consequent upon that order were not given to Northern Ireland to do. We cannot turn our backs on people like that.
The Northern Ireland Members ought to be here staking a claim for their people. I repeat, that the unemployment in the shipyards in Northern Ireland is a tragedy. I am speaking as one who believes that one day we shall get here some Members representing Northern Ireland who will sit on this side of the Committee, not on the Conservative side, and who will have understanding of the problems of the people of Northern Ireland, problems which ought not to be settled, as they have been, on the religious argument. There is not one Member from Northern Ireland here tonight. It is shameful. I, at any rate, am here to stake a claim for Northern Ireland.

Mr. P. Williams: It is with a certain amount of regret that I must now part company from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), but the regret at leaving him is tinged with pleasure at being able to join my right hon. Friend. I hope that he will be resisting this Amendment, and I hope that he will be resisting it because of the contradiction which appears to me to come out of the Opposition's policy on this matter.
The line taken earlier on the benches opposite was concern with the economy of the nation and the conservation of Government funds, and the implication of that was that hon. Members opposite wanted these funds to be used as efficiently as possible. Now they are changing their tune, and they are changing from talking about economy and the efficient use of money to talking about the use of the money for social purposes. I think it can be argued that the money could be used for social purposes, but it ill becomes Members of the Opposition, who earlier today, not so much in the past, changed their side, now to talk about social service expenditure. That is, I believe, to be totally illogical. It also introduces a principle into this Bill which, I think, would be wholly unwelcome to the Committee.

Mr. S. Silverman: I echo the hon. Member's regret at parting company, but I cannot follow his argument. Surely there is no inconsistency in saying first that it is better to spend £12 million than £18 million if the £18 million is unnecessary, and, having failed in that,

then to say, if we are going to spend the money, for heaven's sake spend it where it is most needed and where it will do the most good?

Mr. Williams: Yes, but I think the hon. Gentleman could not have been here for the debate on Second Reading.

Mr. Mellish: He was.

Mr. Williams: If so, I apologise to the hon. Member for that remark, but I suspect that he was not here the whole time and did not hear my speech—and probably he did not think it worth while to read it—but I went out of my way to make the point that there was danger in accepting this Bill if the Government then were able to say that they have shuffled off their responsibilities for shipping and shipbuilding generally. If one applies the principle of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North of using expenditure in this way, to spread a social service, to give a leg-up to shipbuilders and components manufacturers throughout the land, one is running into the danger of putting the Government in the position, which, it may be, they would like to adopt, where they could say, "We have honoured our obligations to shipping and shipbuilding."
That is a position I do not want to see them get into, because, whether we pass this Bill or not, there is a heavy responsibility on my right hon. Friend and on my hon. and gallant Friend of a much wider implication and of much greater importance than the limited confines of the North Atlantic shipping. This is the second reason why I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment.
Therefore, my grounds for hoping he will reject it are, first, because I believe that it is a running away from the sound economic principle which the Minister sees in this Bill, if one accepts the general principle of the Bill. Secondly, it would be wrong to have expenditure of this nature in the form of a social service.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Is it the hon. Member's "sound principle" that shipping should have a general subsidy?

Mr. Williams: I said, "If one accepts the principle of the Bill" and I think the hon. and learned Member realises


that I do not altogether accept the principle. But if one accepts the principle of a subsidy to Cunard, which is the subsidy in the Bill and not a subsidy to shipping, I say that that money should be used as efficiently as possible and not for social purposes. There is a much wider responsibility on the Government to see that there are sound shipping and shipbuilding policies for the nation, which are wider than anything in the Bill. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) is in a sense inverting the argument. He is saying that because the Amendment is a little good in some ways and we all want the general good we should vote against the little good because we cannot have the general good. Does the hon. Member believe in a general subsidy for shipbuilding? I do not think that his argument is anything more than Jesuistic, with due respect to him, and with due respect to the Jesuits too. It is nothing more than a clever argument. He is appealing in particular to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the Advisory Committee's Report, which is in fact on the form of a general subsidy of one kind or another, or a form of Government help. I take exception to this because the whole Bill is designed along the lines of aiding shipbuilding and ship repairing in this country. This is my belief and this is why I would support it. It is outrageous that we should subsidise one company to this extent but because we see this as an integral part of shipbuilding we should support the Amendment.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) was, with respect, a Donna Quixote tilting at windmills. We are only being reasonable in asking for the distribution of subcontracting not only on a businesslike basis but on the social considerations that go with it. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) gave us a laissez-faire argument which is wholly foreign to the Bill. The very fact that we have had so many speeches from hon. Members from so many areas, hoping and pleading that the contract will come to their areas, is proof of the fact that some of us are

trying to bring it to our own rivers which will shorty face considerable unemployment. This is not an unreasonable proposition. Is it therefore unreasonable that those of us who do not take a dog-in-the-manger attitude should say that if the contract goes to one river, then other rivers, not favoured by the geographical fact of selection, should not end by not having fair consideration in sub-contracting?
What do we mean by fair consideration? I would point out that the terms of the Amendment are not unreasonable. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South does us an injustice in saying that we are swinging over to an extreme and are saying that contracting should be for social service purposes. The Amendment does not say that. It says "as far as practicable". It is very modest but it is very important to the Minister in enabling him to take administrative convenience as a basis. This is hardly a social service consideration. I do not think that is fair. That is why when I refer to the hon. Member for Tynemouth in this regard I think she is being unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell). It is perfectly valid that he should append his name to both Amendments and seek to argue the case.
It is reasonable for a firm to argue that its tender is a good one and that on balance the Minister may say that it is a good tender as opposed to a tender in a difficult area, but that things are not all equal and that, therefore, he must give the contract to an area where unemployment is not as high as elsewhere because the tender is good. It would be wrong to say that this is a social service argument.
What I mean is that it is possible within the terms of either Amendment for the Minister to say, "I should accept a tender in north Tyneside which has a lower unemployment figure than south Tyneside because it is less costly in terms of efficiency and the spending of public money, which makes it desirable." We are saying that, all things being equal, it is reasonable that the Minister should intervene as he has promised to do in the allocation of the entire contract.
We have had this argument time and time again, and the Minister's words have been quoted at different junctures


to suit different versions of whatever people wanted. The right hon. Gentleman has been very good in supplying different versions of what people wanted. Equivocation has been almost at a premium in this matter. But we know that the contract will not simply and solely be allocated to the yard which can produce the best tender. We have been told that other considerations will be given their due weight. That is all these Amendments seeks to do in relation to sub-contracting.
I cannot see how this is foreign to the Bill. Indeed, I think it is intrinsic to the Bill. By the definition in Clause 1 it is intrinsic to the Bill. I do not see how the hon. Member for Ashford can say that applying the principle in relation to sub-contracting is different from applying the principle to the general contract.

Mr. Deedes: Has the hon. Gentleman eliminated from his argument all possibility that in certain cases the subcontracts may go overseas? Does he realise that under the terms of this business the Cunard Company will pay any costs over and above the £30 million that the ship may cost? In some cases it is possible that sub-contracts overseas will be cheaper than at home. Is the company to be precluded from making such contracts?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I should not like to see any of the contracts going abroad. I am willing to admit that it is possible for the company to have no other recourse, but British shipbuilders should be given the chance to produce contracts which are fair in competition. I do not know what my hon. Friends mean in their Amendments in that regard, but if they are insisting that contracts should stay in the United Kingdom, then I support them.
We have a good record in relation to the production of many pieces of equipment for ships. In my constituency we have a very good firm which produces steering gear. I would say that even if that firm put in a tender—I am not advocating this; indeed, I do not know whether the firm is putting in a tender—which was slightly above one from, say, Holland, our equipment would be far better than that made in Holland. I say that not as a result of local pride. This firm has been making

these pieces of equipment for hundreds of years.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is upon the basis of his very argument about efficiency that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) are resisting the Amendments? It is simply because they suggest that possibly the north bank of the Tyne, by making itself efficient and by managing to put forward tenders which are based on efficiency, and, because they are efficient, are in themselves competitive, may be eliminated, if the Amendments are accepted, from the possibility of subcontracting in relation to the tender. This seems to me to be very unfair.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is it not the case—I think that this gets to the nub of the argument—that there is no "absolute" in this? In my opinion, it is wrong for anyone to say that efficiency should be the sole determining factor. The Bill makes no pretence about that. That is, if one likes, the Ashford argument.
The other argument, which has been put into our mouths but which is not ours, might be called the Sunderland, South argument—that there should be a social service award of the sub-contracting. The proposition supporting this Amendment is neither one nor the other of these arguments, however. It is neither in favour of efficiency and nothing else, nor of social service and nothing else, but is based on a balance between the two.
It is reasonable to want to write into the Bill the second factor—namely, that the Minister's discretion in relation to the allocation of the contract should be based on factors other than that solely of efficiency. That is all we are asking for, and I am sure it is something that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) may feel able to support.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to speak on behalf of the south bank of the Tyne, and I object to its being suggested that there is some kind of civil economic war between the north and the south banks. On two recent occasions I have


welcomed the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) into my constituency. The first was when I opened an extension of a factory for ladies' lingerie, and the second was when a shipbuilding firm in my constituency launched a ship.
On those occasions, she and I were united in an effort to secure employment for Tyneside. My experience is that, although people live on one bank of the Tyne, they are very often employed on the other. What Tyneside needs is further employment, irrespective of the side of the river on which the employment is provided, and I am certain that there are a number of constituents of mine who work in the hon. Lady's constituency and that many of her constituents come across on the ferry to work in mine—and that situation exists right along the river.
I came down from my constituency yesterday morning by the train that left South Shields at six minutes past seven. It was crowded. People got out at intermediate stations and others got in. Many got out at Newcastle, by which time they had crossed the river and were going to employment on the north bank. This is a great industrial area that cannot afford to have the kind of internal enmities that the hon. Lady attempted to engender, and, as far as I am concerned, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity given him by this Amendment to see that, where the subcontracting work can be well done, it shall be done, the widest possible considerations being borne in mind. For, if the Government are not here to do that in these days of grave economic trouble in our shipping and shipbuilding industries, it is time they realised that they should make way for people who will do the job.

Mr. John Morris: I do not propose to enter into the battle between the north and south banks of the Tyne. I support the Amendment, which is a reasonable one. I have examined the Bill as it stands and I find nothing in it to prohibit this ship being built outside the United Kingdom. That is what the first part of the Amendment proposes to rectify, and I do not think that anyone in this Committee could object to insisting

that the ship be built in the United Kingdom.
The second part of the Amendment concerns sub-contracting. I do not know whether it follows from this part that the sub-contracting must be done in the United Kingdom, but I hope that it does. This is a very big contract to allocate. The chances are that it will go to one of five shipbuilding yards. Having regard to the parlous state of the shipbuilding industry, surely the other yards should share some of the benefits to be derived from this contract.
I hold no brief for any of these yards. I do not represent any of them, but I am a Member for one of the steel constituencies, and I must declare an interest in this matter. I should take a dim view of the Bill if any part of this ship were eventually constructed of steel made outside the United Kingdom. I respectfully submit that the Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Willis: I do not wish to enter into the battle of the shipyards either, but I want to refer to some of the remarks we have heard from hon. Members opposite, apart from the merits of the north bank of the Tyne. I would remind the Committee that we are here providing £18 million worth of capital. Surely any Government providing that amount of money have a duty to see that the capital is spent in the interests of the whole nation, and in a way which will bring to the whole nation the greatest possible benefit.
The argument that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) advanced was that this was not necessarily getting the most efficient results. It all depends upon what we mean by "efficient". It might not be so efficient for the industry, but Governments have much wider considerations when they talk of efficiency. We are considering the efficiency of the whole nation. From a national point of view it might be much better to spend a little more and prevent a large number of people becoming unemployed in a district already badly hit by unemployment. There are many other considerations which contribute to the efficiency of a nation, apart from the single one of a firm's efficiency, or the cheapest way of getting a ship.
The other argument, advanced by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes),


was that this would give us the worst of all possible worlds. The Bill itself does that. Every time we subsidise private industry we get the worst of all possible worlds, because we are paying out large sums of public money over which we have no control. One of the complaints repeatedly made by hon. Members on this side of the Committee is that we should have some control. That is not a great demand to make when we are providing this vast sum of money.
I wonder if, in private industry, a bank would provide £18 million worth of capital without having some say in how it was to be spent. If it is right for private industry to do this sort of thing, why does it suddenly become wrong for the people as a whole to do it? I know of nobody who would hand over £18 million in a carte blanche fashion—certainly not in private industry. The Minister knows that the whole of industry is riddled with interlocking directorships, specifically for the purpose of guiding contracts, here, there and everywhere.

Mr. Deedes: Is the hon. Member prepared to back the Amendment and his argument by saying that the Government, rather than the Cunard Company, should pay anything over the £18 million that the ship may cost?

Mr. Willis: If that situation arose we would probably do that, but that is another of the facts which are continually confronting us, particularly in relation to the Service Departments. About £10 million may have been spent on modernising a ship for the Navy, and the Treasury may then be faced with the question whether it should spend another £2 million or cut it out altogether. What happens as often as not is that the Treasury gives permission for extra money to be spent. That has happened repeatedly. "Victorious" started at an estimated cost of £2 million and ended up at £18 million. I should not be surprised if, in the event of this ship costing more, exactly the same thing were to happen.
I was trying to show that the whole of private industry is governed by these interlocking directorships specifically for the purpose of guiding orders and contracts to this or that firm or to some district or other. That is how private

industry works. I feel rather deeply about these things, without having a financial interest. If it is good enough for private industry, I fail to see why it is a bad principle for us to adopt, so that we say that we are providing capital to the tune of £18 million and we want some say in how it is to be spent in order to achieve the best results for the nation as a whole.
That is the duty of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite spend a great deal of time telling us in connection with money advanced to nationalised industries that it is their duty to discuss the amount spent, and they are prepared to detain hon. Members to a late hour, and we get long speeches from several hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. I have no objection to that, because I believe that it is the duty of hon. Members to consider these things, but I do object when they adopt an attitude towards one industry different from that adopted towards others.
The Minister is responsible for seeing that the expenditure of this sum of £18 million does the greatest possible good. The Amendment asks first that the ship should be built in the United Kingdom—quite a humble demand. Surely we are not providing £18 million to build it somewhere else. Secondly, it asks that it should be built
subject to such conditions regarding subcontracting and other work as the Minister may prescribe.
I suppose that that would take the form of a general directive and would not be the detailed interference in the affairs of the company of which the hon. Member for Ashford spoke. The general directive would say that the Government would like certain work to go to certain areas in view of the unemployment situation or other factors there, or for some good national purpose.
That is a simple and humble request which should be granted without much debate. I cannot understand why we should have had such a long debate. It seems self-evident that these things should be done. When I saw the Minister rise I thought that he wanted to accept the Amendment and so end the debate. However, if not, I hope that he will give us a better argument than we have had in the course of his previous speeches


and that, if he cannot answer us satisfactorily, my hon. Friends will divide the Committee.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the persuasive speeches which have been made, I feel sure that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I venture to draw his attention to the fact that without the Amendment the Clause is quite unqualified. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) referred to the words:
on such terms as may be agreed between the Minister and the Company for the purpose of the construction of a large vessel….
The Minister has only to read those words to see that the matter is left entirely at large between the company and the Minister.
In a question of such magnitude, not only financially but with regard to the employment situation in the country, it is not right that such a matter should be left entirely at large. All that the words we seek to put into the Clause do is to put a limitation on the power of the Minister as regards the place where the vessel can be made, and the place where sub-contracts can be carried out.
Attention has already been drawn to the fact that as the Clause stands this £18 million could be spent outside the United Kingdom. The Minister must be well aware that many contracts for shipbuilding and ship repairing are going to Germany and other places outside Great Britain. It would be a crime against the economy of this country to allow contracts of this magnitude and of this kind to go outside the United Kingdom.
There is another aspect to this. As the Minister knows, shipbuilding and ship repairing involve many subsidiary and ancillary industries. It is not right that a matter of this magnitude should be concentrated in one area which may perhaps already be congested. The Amendment seeks to allow the sub-contracts to be spread throughout the country. By inserting the words "in the United Kingdom", the Amendment seeks to ensure that the contract for this vessel will not go outside the United Kingdom.
The Amendment refers to:
such conditions regarding sub-contracting and other work as the Minister may prescribe.
The sub-contracting and other work could be effectively carried out in other places. I do not want to make a constituency matter of this, but we in Aberdeen have fine shipbuilding yards which could carry out the sub-contracting. I do not see why Aberdeen should not have some of it. It would be wrong to concentrate these sub-contracts in areas which are already congested.
In view of the persuasive arguments which have been put forward by hon. Members, I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I would be unwilling to accept that Motion at this moment.

Mr. Marples: I hope that I might be allowed to reply to what has been a very interesting debate lasting over an hour.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Sir William. I do not wish to challenge what you said, but do I understand that you were not willing to accept the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend because the Minister was about to reply? I understand that the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again cannot be moved until half an hour after the Sittings Motion has been disposed of, but that time has passed. I thought it right that my right hon. Friend should move the Motion that he did. Did you base your Ruling on the fact that the Minister was about to reply?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is a discretion imposed on the occupant of the Chair, and it was in my discretion that I decided not to accept the Motion at this moment.

Mr. Marples: We have had an interesting debate on this Amendment. I am told that the next Amendment will not be called. It would, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), restrict the Minister, and make more precise what he has to


do with regard to sub-contracting. The Amendment which we are discussing seeks to do two things: first, to restrict the construction of the main ship to the shipyards of the United Kingdom. To that extent it is unnecessary because the Cunard Company has issued tenders only to firms in this country and has no intention of going outside. Nobody would have time to tender, and so to that extent the Amendment has been met by administrative action.
Secondly, the Amendment seeks to limit the supply of what I call bought-out items of sub-contracting to what are termed development districts in the Amendment not selected. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) who moved the Amendment, was not precise about it. I did not follow from his speech what he expected me to do or how he expected me to use this authority. He spoke of those areas suffering from redundancy, and he mentioned Scotland and Northern Ireland. Many of the sub-contractors are in development districts and to that extent the Amendment is unnecessary.
It would be undesirable to go further and to restrict the company's freedom of choice of sub-contractors on their merits. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), the Chandos Committee made certain recommendations and the Government got a better bargain. One of the ways is that the Government pay on the ratio of three to two up to the cost of £18 million for the Government and £12 million for the company. At less than £30 million the Government pay at that ratio; at more than £30 million the company pays. Surely it would be wrong for the Government to dictate that the company should go to places where it would be more expensive and where perhaps there would not be the value for money, and—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: But would the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Marples: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to finish.
I remember that there was a misunderstanding on the North-East Coast when it was thought that Swan Hunter and Vicker's would be at a disadvantage as the only tenderers not in a development

district. About a score of hon. Members opposite put down a Motion which is still on the Order Paper. It reads:
That this House views with concern the statement of the Minister of Transport, that in the event of equal tenders being submitted for the new Queen liner the contract would go to a yard in a development district, in view of the fact that this would exclude Swan Hunter's shipyard; calls upon the Minister of Transport to note that in the area in which Swan Hunter's shipyard is situated the percentage of unemployment is twice the national average; and is of the opinion that if Swan Hunter's shipyard were discriminated against merely because the shipyard itself is not sited in a development district while the greater part of the North-East is scheduled, this would amount to grossly unfair discrimination against the North-East.
I must argue that this Amendment puts potential sub-contractors in precisely the same position as hon. Members opposite who signed that Motion thought that the main contractor would be put. Therefore, they condemn me for putting the main contract in this way, but they ask me to do precisely the same about the sub-contracts. The request was made in rather vague terms. Although I appreciate the reasonableness of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, that was clearly what he had in mind. But he was vague about how it could be done.
I shall not enter into the controversy between the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. I was grateful for her support today and also for that of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). One never quite knows who is on one's side in the House of Commons and this was a unique combination. I want the Cunard Company to get the best possible value for the ship, but I should not like to be the Minister who had to decide on the vague criteria which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned in his opening speech on this Amendment. The pressures that I as Minister would be subjected to would be quite intolerable.
I have always said that the main contract will go for value for money, but if there were five or six firms tendering for the main contract and when they put in the main price we said "You must alter that sub-contract and go somewhere else", that would be a most inefficient way to proceed. I have had experience


of sub-contracting in civil engineering. I assure the hon. Member that what he proposes would be impossible administratively and intolerable politically. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted. I have always said that the main ship should not necessarily go to the lowest tender but for the best value, and that includes price, delivery date and technical assessment of the ship. I have always said that and never varied from it.
I do not think that at this late stage with these vague criteria—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says, "With no regard for unemployment". How can any Minister say that a sub-contract which gives good value for money should be overturned, that the North East should not sub-contract and that it should go somewhere else where unemployment is high? How high has it to be? Who judges that? It would place an intolerable burden on a Minister. When I ask for wide powers I usually get criticised, but I should be very reluctant to accept this responsibility. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The Minister said that he would give way, but he has not done so. That is an old trick and unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. I should like him to explain this. The subsection provides that the terms should be
such terms as may be agreed between the Minister and the Company.
Apparently it is settled that the ship shall be built in the United Kingdom. It is also provided in subsequent subsections what the terms in regard to rates of interest and so on shall be. So the phrase
such terms as may be agreed
is not intended to apply either to the ship itself being built in the United Kingdom or to the financial terms applying to the agreement. To what does it apply? To what is this subsection directed? What are the terms which "may be agreed"? What category of terms has the Minister in mind which do not apply to the place of building of the ship or the financial terms in the agreement?
The Minister says that this has not to do with sub-contracting, because he derides the suggestion that sub-contracting should be dealt with in any way except at the complete discretion of the Cunard Company. Apparently, the Minister is not to have any say of any kind in regard to the sub-contracting terms. By what criterion does he say that it is important that the ship should be built in the United Kingdom when he completely washes his hands of the sub-contracting arrangements? The sub-contracting arrangements may be extremely important. They may be extremely important to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). This is extremely important to those on the southern bank of the Tyne, to the Clyde, to Northern Ireland and to other areas—yet all the Minister addresses himself to is the place where the ship itself, the main bulk, the main contract, is to be built.
11.30 p.m.
This is utterly impossible. Is the Minister really saying that he is not in the least concerned with sub-contracting matters? Is he saying that that is entirely a matter for the Cunard Company to decide? Is the Minister washing his hands of the whole affair, whatever may be the employment conditions in any area? That is what he is saying. That it is utterly unacceptable to hon. Members on this side of the Committee and must surely be unacceptable to hon. Members on the Government benches, especially those with unemployment problems and especially in view of the speech made by the hon. Member for Tynemouth who was so concerned about the northern bank of the Tyne.
What does the Minister mean? I want to know. Is he washing his hands entirely of sub-contracting provisions, because that is what it seems he is telling the Committee. If so, why does he wash his hands of the sub-contracting provisions when, apparently, he says that it has already been said that the ship will be built in this country? If it is important that the ship should be built in this country, it is equally important that the sub-contracting should take place in this country.
If the terms in subsection (1) do not apply to the placing of the main contract, to what do they apply? How on


earth is the Minister to operate the provisions in the agreement
…on such terms as may be agreed between the Minister and the Company…"?
What category of terms are to be subject to agreement between him and the company? I hope that hon. Members will receive a further reply from the Minister before we depart from this Clause.

Mr. Willey: I see that the Minister intends to speak again on this subject. May I, before he replies further, assure him that I share the disappointment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas)? I think that the Minister is improving and I think, also, that if I state our case once more he might be able to reconsider the matter and perhaps meet us in our request.
I do not wish to make the point about building the ship in the United Kingdom. We should have a provision to that effect in the Bill, at the same time being proud that the ship is to be built here. I agree that that is a matter which should not be left to agreement which is not a part of the Bill. But in agreeing that there is no question of the ship being built elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, may I inform the Minister that it will be built here or the Minister will not be in office the next day?
Since we are discussing the component parts of the ship, the Committee should face something which is disturbing the workers in this industry, and that is that more and more of the component parts of ships being built in Britain are being supplied from abroad. That is a reflection, I agree, on certain sections of the shipbuilding industry.
I do not subscribe to the point of view of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott), and I believe it was implicit in the speech of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), that we can disregard this matter. This is a question of the British taxpayer's money. We are concerned about the effects of this aid and we want to ensure that it provides employment for British workpeople. It is right to say that the Minister had better retain a supervisory control and see that as far as possible this is a British ship in every sense of the word.
This is important because the company ordering can largely determine

what is provided. Surely it is not placing an unreasonable burden on the Minister to say to him, "You entered into an agreement with Cunard. Carry this a stage further and be in a position to show the House and the British taxpayer that as far as practicable—we shall not ask you to take any unreasonable steps—you satisfy yourself that the British shipbuilding and ancillary industries get the benefit from the money which is being advanced."
May I deal with a point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth? Our difficulty is providing a criterion. In this Amendment we provide none but the good sense and sound judgment of the right hon. Gentleman, which his back bench colleagues are apparently unwilling to support. If we seek criteria we are bound to look at the Local Employment Act or to suggest other criteria. In this Amendment we leave it to the Minister. It is not a question of placing the contracts. We are dealing with sub-contracting or, in the right hon. Gentleman's words, with bought-out matters. We recognise that there would be difficulties in implementing the Amendment, but we are not placing an obligation upon the Minister which he must discharge. We ask that he should use his best endeavours to see that as far as possible British industry is supported.
This money is a direct, enormous assistance to the shipbuilding industry; £3¼ million is not a flea-bite. But because of the project it will go to one yard. All we ask is that in the subcontracting work, the bought-out work, as the Minister described it, regard should be had to the difficulties being faced by shipyards and industries in other districts. This is not strange to the Government. I will give two illustrations. The proposal is made in the Sub-Committee's Report to which I referred that in naval work this factor should be borne in mind. I am not saying that the cases are parallel, but if regard were had to that Report the Government would have to place the work without disregarding redundancies and difficulties in the shipbuilding industries. The other examples to which I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention is the Local Employment Act under which the Government give assistance when the firm or company


cannot obtain the money and the Government decide that it would be in the public interest for it to extend its work in a district of severe unemployment. This is on all fours with such a case. The Cunard Company says, in effect, "We cannot raise the money in the market. We should like the Government to provide us with the money on favourable terms, as well as with a grant". The Government's interest is the same in this case and the decisions which they take are similar.
I do not for a moment say that this is an easy matter, nor do I deny that the right hon. Gentleman would be subject to very real pressures. I share my hon. Friend's surprise that the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends from Northern Ireland have not thought it fit and proper to be present this evening. I hope that their absence will be borne in mind by their constituents, because we all know that there is very real concern about shipbuilding in Northern Ireland.
In this day and age, the Minister cannot escape responsibility by saying, "This would be a very difficult task to perform, and I would be subject to very real pressures." That is part and parcel of Government today. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this matter again. If he does not like the wording of the Amendment, let him suggest better words. All the same, I think that it gives him a very wide discretion, and places on him a general obligation to see that as far as possible when a very large order such as this is given, the effects upon industry as a whole should be borne in mind, and that where it is proper to see that work goes to areas facing particular difficulty the work will go to those areas.
When one is dealing with sub-contracting one has to bear very much in mind the financial tie-ups between ancillary firms and that it is that that determines a good deal of the sub-contracting. That may not be desirable, any more than it would be desirable for components to be made abroad. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman, having got the authority of the Committee to advance £18 million, will recognise that it places a very heavy public responsibility on his shoulders, and that he will help in the discharge of that responsibility

by saying, "Certainly, if this aid is being provided for the Cunard Company I will see that, as far as conforms with efficiency and the orderly carrying out of the contract, the work will go where it is most needed."

Mr. Marples: I must say that I thought the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was most reasonable—and a little more hesitant than usual in putting forward his views, because he himself recognised the difficulties—

Dame Irene Ward: Well, he made a bloomer.

Mr. Marples: If I may say so, he made another. This is not on all fours with naval work and the recommendations of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee. He said that those giving out the naval work were supposed to take these things into consideration, but the actual recommendation was that if it was at all possible the orders from the Navy should be accelerated. It did not, however, go on to say where the orders should be placed. The orders are put out to competitive tender, and it has paid the Navy so to do. To that extent, the hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that this was on all fours.
The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that the major problem facing our shipbuilding industry was to get all the orders from our shipping firms. If it were able to do that it would not be far short of having full order books. We know that more of our shipping firms' orders are going abroad than has been the case in the last twenty years. Among other reasons given, it is said that the firms abroad are more competitive in price, will give a fixed delivery date and, on some occasions give longer credit.
I have seen some of the shipping firms individually and, in confidence, they have told me what the figures are. I share the hon. Gentleman's apprehension about this, and that is all the more reason for saying that if, in this international industry, our shipbuilding industry is not competitive it will ultimately be doomed, whatever the Government may do. That is why I think it wrong not to judge this on the basis of merit.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what Clause 1 (1) meant. If he will look at


paragraph 26 of the Memorandum on Points of Agreement he will find that it quite clearly states:
The specification upon which the invitations to tender are based, the evaluation of the tenders when received and the final contract for the construction of the ship and any modifications and variations subsequently made materially affecting that contract or its performance to be the subject of mutual agreement between Cunard and Her Majesty's Government.
11.45 p.m.
What, in effect, will happen is precisely what happens when we give a road contract or a bridge contract: the consulting engineer sends in his report, analysing all the tenders, and the Government make their decision upon the commercial, technical and financial considerations. It does not say that we should disregard those and give an order elsewhere; because there are no criteria on which to do that. As I say, it will be exactly the same here as it is with roads and bridges.
The real point is that the Yarrow yard, the Admiralty Research Department, my Ministry officials, and Cunard will evaluate these tenders, and they will judge what is commercially the best proposition for the nation—which, naturally, will be the best proposition for Cunard as well, because Cunard's interests are identical. It is in the interest of Cunard to keep the costs down, because if they go high, it pays for them, and it will only get the ship at the end.
With all respect to the hon. Member, who put his case most reasonably, I think he himself recognises the difficulty in which I should be placed in trying to interpret the provision of his Amendment. It would be a virtually impossible position. I see that his heart has dictated the Amendment. I can assure him honestly that I do not see how it could be carried out. I hope that, with the reasonableness we all associate with him, he will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Willey: I am sure that the Committee is greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. We see he is coming nearer to us, but my heart dictates—I have a real constituency interest in a shipbuilding area—that we show our dissatisfaction with the conclusion to which he has come by dividing on this Amendment.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am concerned at the Minister's reply. What the Minister has said is that sub-contracting is being sent out from this country to yards abroad because the yards abroad are cheaper. He himself is very much and deeply concerned about that position. That is his first proposition. His second is that Cunard is to have exclusive control of the sub-contracting and the Minister is not going to interfere with it in the least. If the Minister wishes to modify what he has said, instead of sniggering, I will give way to him. He does not. He wants to continue sniggering? All right. His third proposition is that the Cunard Company will, of course, go to the most economical market. Those are his three propositions. The fourth is that Cunard will almost inevitably go abroad for subcontracting. That is the sum of what he has said.

Mr. Morris: Scandalous.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Of course it is scandalous.
The Minister contemplates a substantial amount of sub-contracting of this company going abroad. He is doing that with his eyes wide open and is not taking any steps at all to prevent it or to remedy the position in the least. Yet, nevertheless, he calls upon the Committee to support that proposition. I trust we shall most strongly oppose it.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:

The Committee divided: Ayes 42, Noes 118.

Division No. 179.]
AYES
[11.50 p.m.


Awbery, Stan
Hannan, William
Morris, John


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parkin, B. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William


Diamond, John
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gaitskell Rt. Hon. Hugh
McInnes, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, A. C.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, George




Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Thorpe, Jeremy
Willey, Frederick



Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, W. R. (Openeshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wainwright, Edwin
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. Lawson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Peel, John


Barter, John
Gower, Raymond
Percival, Ian


Berkeley, Humphry
Green, Alan
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pitman, I. J.


Bingham, R. M.
Grimond, J.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bishop, F. P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pott, Percivall


Black, Sir Cyril
Gurden, Harold
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bossom, Clive
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Ramsden, James


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Box, Donald
Hastings, Stephen
Rees, Hugh


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Renton, David


Brewis, John
Hendry, Forbes
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bullard, Denys
Hocking, Philip N.
Seymour, Leslie


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holland, Philip
Shaw, M.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hollingworth, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hopkins, Alan
Smithers, Peter


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cole, Norman
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Corfield, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Turner, Colin


Coulson, J. M.
James, David
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jennings, J. C.
Walder, David


Curran, Charles
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Walker, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Wall, Patrick


Deedes, W. F.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Ward, Dame Irene


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Watts, James


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Whitelaw, William


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maddan, Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Finlay, Graeme
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Wise, A. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Woodnutt, Mark


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Worsley, Marcus


Gammans, Lady
Montgomery, Fergus



Gardner, Edward
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Noble, Michael
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Frank Pearson.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)

Mr. Strauss: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do so in order to find out from the Government what their plans are about the remaining stages of the Bill. The hour is late, there are a number of Amendments on the Order Paper that we have not yet dealt with which are highly controversial and very important, and there is the Third Reading of the Bill, which has to be taken at some time.
We should be very grateful if the Leader of the House would tell us, in view of the progress that has been made already, what his future plans are and when we can be expected to conclude the remaining stages of the Bill.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The Motion is quite understandable. However, I do not think we have made as much progress as we ought to have made.

A great deal of time has been taken up on a matter which is of great national importance; namely, the future of the British shipping industry and shipbuilding, which I feel certain that hon. Members opposite do not in their hearts want to oppose, although physically they have opposed it a great deal tonight, which will be noticed by the country.
What I suggest as a reasonable understanding with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Interruption.]—yes, this is the "menu card"—is that we should deal with the next Amendment. It is in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who does not appear to be present, but the names of other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), are attached to it. I agree that the remaining Amendments raise further issues in relation to the securities and equities involved, which I believe are of great


interest to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee.
If we did that, I suggest that we should settle the rest of the Bill in half a day, including Third Reading. If that is agreeable to Members opposite, I think that it would be a reasonable understanding, and that we should undertake to get tonight the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Easington which, I understand, is to be called, and then call it a day. If this suggestion seems reasonable, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not persist with his Motion.
12.0 midnight.

Mr. Strauss: I think that the proposal put by the Leader of the House is reasonable. It is always very difficult to discuss properly and effectively important matters in the middle of the night, and it would be more effective and satisfactory to everybody if we discussed these matters of great principle some other time. I have consulted my right hon. and hon. Friends who are most interested in this matter, and they all agree that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is reasonable and proper, and will co-operate to do what they can to conclude discussion of the remaining Amendments and the Third Reading within half a day. They feel that we will be able to do that and express fully the strong views which we hold on this matter. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, which is acceptable, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Michael Foot: My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) says that he has consulted his hon. Friends about the withdrawal of this Motion and about the arrangement he has apparently made with the Government. I am sure he would not dissent from the proposition that he has not consulted either me or some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Strauss: I consulted all those who have shown, up to now, a special interest in this Bill. I have consulted all those who have spoken or shown special interest. If I have not consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) it is because, for some reason, he has not spoken or has, so far, been absent from the debates.

Mr. Foot: As a matter of fact I have been in the Chamber listening to discussion of the Amendments since about half past nine. I know that it is a remarkable state of affairs for anybody to be present here who is not seeking to make a speech, but I have listened for the last three or three and a half hours, and I think that I am as entitled as many other hon. Members to engage in the debate.
I shall not hold up the proceedings, and I do not dissent from the general proposition that has been made, but I think that we are entitled to say that nobody has consulted me and some of my hon. Friends about the arrangements made either for business tonight or business to take place on a subsequent occasion. My hon. Friends and I will take the proper Parliamentary course, when it comes to the discussion in the other half day the Government are to provide, to listen to the answers given from the Treasury Bench, see whether, in our view, they are satisfactory, and then make up our minds about our course of action according to those answers.
If I might be so diffident as to offer advice to my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, I think it would always be a better course for them if they were to see the kind of conduct which Ministers display before agreeing about the point at which a debate should be terminated. It is a much better way of extracting from the Government courteous and possibly satisfactory replies—though that is a great deal to ask for from Ministers.
We are all glad to see the Leader of the House back here in his most tactful mood. He seems to have learnt a great deal in recent weeks. Instead of making big speeches at small dinners, he has come to try to smooth things over in the Committee, and we are glad to see him back. But he must not think that he will get his own way everywhere because the Prime Minister got him out of a fix earlier today. He must recognise that when we discuss the later part of the Bill the answers which Ministers give will determine the rate of progress. I have been here only for three and a half hours, but if the answers are anything like those we have had from the Minister of Transport today it may take longer than half a day to conclude the business on this Bill.
It is an astonishing exhibition that the Committee has had. I was not present at the time—[Laughter.]—I was not referring to the Minister's speech, but to the analogy that I was about to make. I was not present at the time when the then Sir Thomas Inskip was the spokesman for the Government, but some hon. Members have remarked that no such brilliant and skilful defence of the Government has been made since those days until the Minister's speech today. I think that is agreed on all sides. In fact, the best course for the Government to take is to take the whole Bill away. It is extremely unpopular with hon. Members on both sides. There has been no logical defence of it, and I very much doubt whether the Minister believes in it. It would be much better if he took the Bill away. Indeed, that may happen before we come to this promised half day.
All I can say—speaking for a few of my hon. Friends—is that we are as entitled to say what we think as any other hon. Members, and to give our views upon the way in which the business should be conducted. Whatever may be the views of some hon. Members on this side of the Committee, or hon. Members opposite who are so frequently opposed to the Government, in our opinion no undertaking should be given until we have heard what the Government have to say.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end to insert:
Provided that the vessel conforms to such conditions regarding the standard of crew accommodation to be provided in the vessel as shall be prescribed by the Minister after consultations with organisations appearing to him to represent substantial proportions of the persons to be employed in the vessel or any class of such persons.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide some guarantees with regard to the accommodation for the crew on board this very expensive ship. The ship will cost at least £30 million, and we are naturally concerned to ensure that those who will serve her—and serve her well, in whatever capacity—should have the most modern accommodation. I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to say that he has been

in contact with the National Union of Seamen, and I understand that that union, in its turn, has been in contact with the Cunard Company on this matter. My right hon. Friend tells me that both parties have come to an amicable arrangement about these matters, and that the union is not alarmed at the position.
But it is right to provide that, since £18 million of public money is to be expended, the Government should take an interest in this matter and give us certain assurances. I should be willing to withdraw the Amendment, if its wording is not suitable, if, at a later stage, the Government were willing to provide for the necessary guarantees to be inserted. I am sure that the principle of the Amendment is the correct one, and I hope we can be given the necessary assurances.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I very much appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) moved the Amendment, which, as he said, has the object of providing a guarantee in relation to the accommodation of the crew. I can at once confirm that there has already been contact between the seamen's union and the line and I think also the appropriate officers' associations of the line as well.
The effect of the Amendment would be to make the Minister prescribe special standards of crew accommodation for this vessel after the special consultations for this purpose had taken place with the seafarers' organisations. I remind the hon. Member for Bermondsey and other hon. Members that in any case the vessel must comply with the Ministry's requirements for crew accommodation. Those are set forth in the Merchant Shipping (Crew Accommodation) Regulations which are reasonably up to date—Statutory Instrument No. 1036 of 1953, issued under the authority of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948.
Those Regulations are kept up to date from time to time and I observe that the most recent amendment was laid before Parliament as recently as 19th March this year and came into force on 1st May. I mention that to show that the Regulations are kept up to date. Moreover, they were framed in consultation with the seafarers' organisations and are


based on the International Labour Convention No. 92 which was agreed by both sides of the industry.
I have looked into this matter rather carefully. I have had a quick look at the design of the ship and the accommodation to be provided will not only comply fully with the Regulations, but in many respects will exceed them. For example, I understand that the entire crew accommodation is to be air conditioned, and also that a cinema is to be provided for the exclusive use of the crew. I give those as two examples.
We feel that the existing Regulations and the procedure for applying them will be sufficient and that it would be undesirable to prescribe special conditions applicable only to this ship. That is something which might be misunderstood and I do not think that is necessary. In general, the accommodation will be fully in accord with the best and most up-to-date practice and the seafaring organisations will, of course, have every opportunity to put forward their views upon it. That being the case, I very much hope that the hon. Member will see his way to withdrawing the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: I am glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has had to say. This will be a great ship, a show boat, a great prestige ship, and it is therefore right that the crew accommodation should be quite remarkable. I am glad to hear that there are already ideas in the design for air conditioning and so on and for a cinema. For £30 million one could almost provide a cinema for each member of the crew, but certainly there should be one for the lot.
With that assurance and in the confidence that the crew will benefit from what will undoubtedly be a very great ship, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do so in view of the exchanges between the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (ALLOWANCES) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 48 (Money Committees).

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the amendment of the conditions giving entitlement to payment of certain allowances to members of bodies to which Part VI of the Local Government Act, 1948, applies and to members of certain bodies constituted under the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, and to payment of travelling allowances to justices of the peace and members of probation and other committees constituted under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Resolution to he reported.

Report to he received this day.

Orders of the Day — RAIGMORE HOSPITAL, INVERNESS (DR. PALMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

12.16 a.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I wish to raise tonight the question of the dismissal of a young doctor, Dr. Patrick Palmer, from Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, to 24th December, 1960.
This is an important matter, and I am obliged to the Secretary of State for Scotland for being present at this late hour to answer the debate. It is appropriate that such a senior Minister—indeed, the Minister ultimately responsible—should answer in this case, because it is not only a matter of concern to Dr. Palmer, but a matter of great general principle which involves the position of house officers throughout the hospital service.
At 8 a.m. on 22nd December, 1960, Dr. Palmer, who had been up until 5 a.m. that morning attending to a patient who was an emergency admission, was awakened from his sleep and told that


a casualty was in the out-patient department awaiting his attention. He made inquiries about the patient and was told that she was suffering from a scalp wound. The person concerned, a ward orderly, had fallen off her bicycle. The doctor shaved and dressed, and decided to have his breakfast. It took him forty minutes to do that and get to the out-patient department. Because of the geography of the hospital he wanted to go through the out-patient department to the ward to prepare the patient he had admitted in the middle of the night for an immediate operation. I have no doubt that everyone is glad that that patient fully recovered.
By 8.40 that morning that young man had had an average of five hours' sleep over the previous five days, an experience which even we in Parliament do not share, and I have no doubt that in such circumstances people get irritated easily. I have seen the present Secretary of State for Scotland irritated in the middle of the night. It is something which happens to us all.

Mr. E. G. Willis: In less trying circumstances.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: As my hon. Friend says, in less trying circumstances.
This young man was rude to the sister in attendance at the out-patient department when in rather shrewish fashion she reproved him for not coming immediately he was telephoned forty minutes before.
Dr. Palmer was dismissed by the deputy superintendent at one o'clock that day with a promise of a month's salary, but I leave that aspect of it. The deputy superintendent said that he had consulted the young doctor's senior, Mr. Hamilton, the consultant surgeon, and he had agreed to the dismissal. When Mr. Hamilton was given the full facts of the circumstances, not only did he disagree with the decision to dismiss him, but he said later that he doubted whether in the circumstances he would have acted otherwise.
I raise this because this young man has a stain on his professional reputation, which ought to be erased. First, we are not sure why he was dismissed, and

the right hon. Gentleman in his correspondence says:
In fact, there is no material disagreement over the facts.
I challenge that. I have since been told that the right hon. Gentleman has not been completely informed of the facts. If he has been completely informed of the facts, there has not been a proper balance of judgment in this case. For example, I am told in the Secretary of State for Scotland's letter that he was summarily dismissed, the primary reason being the neglect of the patient.
I have a testimony from the ward orderly patient saying that she was perfectly satisfied with the treatment she was given, and that she in no way holds Dr. Palmer in any disregard as a consequence of having been forty minutes late.
I also have a letter from the chairman of the special committee of the board of management, Mr. Smith, who has given me authority to quote this. In the first paragraph he says:
The patient, Miss Jessie MacDonald, appeared at the hearing of the appeal and was questioned by the Committee. She unreservedly paid tribute to Dr. Palmer's attention to her and thanked him.
Having gone into the treatment he gave her I cannot see how anyone could suggest that the patient was neglected. Had she fallen off her bicycle outside her home instead of outside the hospital it would have taken a general practitioner more than forty minutes to have got to her house, and he would not have been reproved for having delayed in getting there.
It seems to me outrageous that as a consequence of this alleged forty-minute delay Dr. Palmer could be charged with having been neglectful to the patient. I seek tonight to have that stain on the professional character of Dr. Palmer removed by an admission from the Secretary of State that this young man was not dismissed as a result of neglect of the patient.
I challenge the procedure adopted by the board of management in this case. There are so many anomalies and malpractices within the machinery adopted in this case that I cannot understand why the Secretary of State declined a public inquiry. Being a reasonable person, I was perfectly willing to settle for a


private inquiry which would be able to satisfy Dr. Palmer and the officials concerned that the deputy superintendent acted rather hastily. I pressed this on the Secretary of State but the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to adopt that course. A public inquiry would have revealed a great deal more which would not have been to the discredit of Dr. Palmer.
I know Dr. Palmer. He was a student at the university some years after I qualified. He was a very high-spirited young man who liked going to parties and I have no doubt that at some parties he may have misbehaved himself. But there is nothing in his record to say that when on duty he was other than responsible. I have here a certificate issued under the Medical Education Act, 1950, signed by Dr. Palmer's own chief, Mr. A. T. R. Hamilton, the consultant surgeon at the hospital, and countersigned by the superintendent of the hospital, Colonel Gordon, saying that he had carried out his duties in a satisfactory manner from 1st August, 1960, until 24th December, 1960, which includes the day on which he was dismissed. I should like it made clear tonight that he was dismissed because of his alleged rudeness to the sister.
He told this woman, when he was reproved and nagged at by her, to shut her mouth, or words to that effect. Perhaps the words which he used were a little stronger. I wonder whether other men in other positions may not have used similar words. I have heard surgeons use similar and even stronger words when sorely taxed in the middle of an operation, or under the pressure of events when examining a patient, and the nursing staff have always taken it in good part. That is one of the bonds between the nursing profession and the medical profession, the give and take in relations with one another in times of tribulation. But this exceptional woman decided to take up the matter with the matron and she got this young man into trouble. The deputy superintendent seemed unable to resist the representations of the matron in the matter, and after this young man had finished his operating list for the day he was told of his dismissal.
I wish to go on to say how this machinery was used. This young man was evicted from the hospital thirty-six

hours after his dismissal. He was evicted under the most disgraceful circumstances. The police were called in on the afternoon of the 24th December—Christmas Eve—and asked to consider evicting this young man from his quarters, as he was no longer a servant of the hospital. The police declined, showing better sense than the officials. At 1 a.m. on 25th December his room was entered forcibly by the superintendent and the deputy-superintendent, the secretary, the head gardener and one or two other assistants. These "brave" men proceeded to manhandle this young man and his belongings out of the hospital and to deposit him on the main Inverness-Perth road. Is that the way to treat a professional man who has given such splendid service, as I can testify from dozens of letters from patients in Inverness and adjoining districts? No wonder that people are annoyed. All the senior medical men at the hospital and the B.M.A. in Scotland have protested about the treatment of this young man.
This dark cloud is not, however, without its silver lining, for at least the Secretary of State has now agreed to review the system. Why was the chairman of the board of management allowed to sit in judgment on this case when the appeals committee report was before it? I am led to believe that in fact the chairman was asked by the hospital secretary or by Dr. MacLellan, or both, to agree to the police being summoned to evict this young man. If Colonel Mackenzie agreed to this, why was he allowed to preside at the board of management meeting which decided this matter? This was settled by the casting vote of the chairman who himself had given a positive vote in the deliberations of the committee in regard to the appeal. I quote from Mr. Smith's letter. He was chairman of the special appeal committee. In his letter of 26th May he wrote:
At the meeting, after the submission of the report of the special appeal committee, which was followed by considerable discussion, the chairman invited Mr. Swannie to refer to any possible repercussions.
Mr. Swannie is the legal adviser to the Scottish Hospital Service and was not invited there, I understand, by the board of management, but by either the chairman or the secretary. He was asked to give his opinions. At this meeting the


man mainly concerned in the matter. Dr. Palmer, was not legally represented. The letter went on:
Mr. Swannie in the course of his reply, stated that if the board reversed the decision, Dr. Palmer might take an action against the board and members might have to give evidence in court. He concluded his remarks by strongly advising the board to leave the decision as it had been made. The chairman then asked the members to make proposals and Mr. Smith formally moved that the report of the appeal committee that the sentence of dismissal was not justified be accepted by the board. This second motion was overruled by adjournment of the meeting.
The adjournment was for tea. During tea the board of management saw the members of the appeal committee, two of whose names we know and the chairman and Mr. Swannie lobbyed board members arguing that the good name of the hospital was being risked if they reinstated this young man. The letter goes on:
Immediately on the resumption of the meeting, the chairman moved that dismissal was justified. Mr. Smith moved a direct negative.
The chairman's casting vote was for the dismissal. It seems most outrageous and much deserving of a public inquiry. In the light of the behaviour of the officers concerned it is important that there should be a public inquiry. It is almost impossible to get house officers to go to this hospital. Their duties are extremely onerous. One has only to look into the day of a houseman there to realise that these young men, who have no shift hours terms and no trade union, have to carry on all the time keeping the hospital going.
It is not normally realised by the general public what a vital part is played by house officers. It is, therefore, all the more important that hon. Members, who are the custodians of the National Health Service, should make sure that these men are fairly dealt with.
I have a letter which was written not to me, but to another hon. Member by a doctor in that hospital who is a friend of the hon. Member concerned. I think, actually, that he is a distant relative. He says:
I must close on a rather cowardly note and say that I would prefer my name kept out of this, if possible. A colleague of mine, active in the Palmer cause, has been warned to watch his step and that his activities are not unobserved by the senior administrator! He has

the offer of a good job in Australia and this has merely encouraged his activities, but regrettably I am not so fortunately placed. There are too many undercurrents and ugly forces at work here as I think you will learn in the days to come.
That is an unsolicited comment from a doctor in the hospital. I have been given permission to quote from the letter, but I wish to observe the request that the writer's name should not be mentioned.
In this kind of atmosphere, and from the events I have described, is it not time that this whole affair was investigated? Is it not time to find out exactly what is going on? There is this alleged rudeness to a sister. Then there was what I consider to have been the initial mistake on the part of a person who was in the running for a good job with the regional hospital board and who was frightened to undo that mistake. Then followed the other events I have described. A decision was arrived at and, in my view, it was a decision that could not have been inflicted upon a G.P. in similar circumstances.
Thus, I submit that there is still a good case for a public inquiry to be held into this whole matter. The Secretary of State will grow in stature if he agrees to this suggestion. If he does not, he will be condoning the frame-up of this young man in relation to the appeal and the whole thing from beginning to end.
If the Secretary of State refuses to hold an inquiry he will be doing what he said, while in opposition, he would never do; protecting bureaucrats and allowing the individual to become a piece of flotsam in the State machine. The Secretary of State used to deny that he would allow such a thing to happen. I invite him to think again and to hold a public inquiry, which is this young man's due.

12.33 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has put his point of view on this case with vigour and energy. I do not complain about his having raised this matter this evening, because the point he made about the importance of the individual is indeed important. But there is a wider matter involved also, with which I shall try to deal. I must, first, restate the main facts


leading up to the dismissal of Dr. Palmer, and the reasons for my decision not to institute an inquiry, either public or private.
At 8 a.m. on the morning of 22nd December, 1960, Dr. Palmer, a resident house officer at Raigmore Hospital, was in the residency in the hospital grounds. He was called, by telephone, by the sister-in-charge of the casualty department to attend a patient suffering from a head inquiry.
By 8.15 a.m. he had not arrived and the sister called him again. As he did not undertake to come at once, she also reported the position to the matron; and the matron asked to be informed if Dr. Palmer had not come to the casualty department by 8.30 a.m. By 8.30 a.m. he had not arrived and the sister informed the matron, who herself telephoned Dr. Palmer and asked him to attend the casualty.
Dr. Palmer arrived in the casualty department between 8.40 and 8.45 a.m. When he arrived words were exchanged between him and the sister-in-charge and he subsequently attended the patient.
I am not a doctor and I do not know how one knows whether or not a head injury is serious. However, the matron reported the matter to the deputy group medical superintendent, who later in the day interviewed Dr. Palmer. No satisfactory explanation was given and no reason for the delay in attending the casualty, and at that stage Dr. Palmer did not express any regret at what had happened. The deputy medical superintendent thereupon dismissed Dr. Palmer because of his failure to attend the patient promptly. His rudeness to the sister was not the reason for his dismissal.
I should inform the House at this point that there is a comprehensive memorandum for house officers employed in the Inverness Hospitals Group which specifies in some detail what is expected of them. It states among other things,
If a house officer is requested to attend the casualty department he will do so as quickly as possible or ask the sister to contact one of his colleagues who is more readily available. New patients in the casualty department must be seen as soon after their arrival as possible.
There are other remarks, but that is the key point and it is clear that the hospital

attaches great importance to prompt attendance to casualties when they appear.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: rose—

Mr. Maclay: I must make this clear and I have little time. Dr. Palmer decided to appeal against the dismissal. Since 1953 there has existed in the hospital service a procedure for dealing with appeals against disciplinary action, including dismissal. The procedure was set out in a memorandum by my Department in that year. Among other things it asks employing authorities to set up an appeal committee from among its own members to hear each appeal and to interview the employee concerned. The members of that committee should not include anyone who has been directly involved in the case. The report of the committee is then submitted to the employing authority whose responsibility it is for reaching a final decision in the case.
When it received Dr. Palmer's appeal the board of management appointed an appeal committee of five. The committee interviewed Dr. Palmer and the other people concerned in the events of that day, 22nd December. Dr. Palmer was given full opportunity to justify his actions or, if he thought fit, to apologise for what had happened. No apology was in fact given. The appeal committee did not make any specific recommendation to the board of management about the action which the board should take and merely minuted the personal reactions of members about the severity of the disciplinary action which the medical superintendent had taken.
The board of management then discussed the report of the committee very fully and considered a motion that the dismissal should be upheld. This motion was supported by seven members of the board, including two of the five members who were on the appeal committee, and there were seven members against the motion. The chairman gave his casting vote in favour of the dismissal. The hon. Member referred to the chairman's part in all this. I am informed that the chairman had no knowledge of the dismissal of Dr. Palmer until after the event.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: And the eviction?

Mr. Maclay: That is irrelevant to the problem which the Secretary of State has to consider. My problem as Secretary of State is what happened up to the point of dismissal and what happened in relation to the appeal. What happened thereafter is not relevant.
When this decision became known dissatisfaction was expressed in various quarters and suggestions were made that I should hold an inquiry into the whole matter. Before I indicate to the House the precise considerations which I had in mind in considering these representations, it would, I think, be useful if I reminded the House of the constitutional position covering the relationship between the Secretary of State and the hospital authorities. This is very important, and I agree that it goes beyond the individual concerned; it is a big issue.
As hon. Members are aware, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 set up regional boards and boards of management to act as agents of the Secretary of State in running the hospital service. There is no doubt that the ultimate responsibility lies upon the Secretary of State and that he can issue formal directions to hospital authorities on any matter, large or small. That is the position. But the working of the service would be impossible if the Secretary of State in fact sought to run the whole service himself or to revise executive decisions made by his agents merely because he might have made a different decision had he been in their place. This is very important. It affects the working of the service. He must leave responsibility for day-to-day decisions to those to whom responsibility is delegated and who know the local situation. This does not mean that the Secretary of State ought never to intervene. It does mean, however, that intervention is justified only in very unusual circumstances.
It was against this general background that I had to consider these representations in favour of inquiry into Dr. Palmer's dismissal. It seemed to me that intervention could be justified in this case only if, first of all, there was some serious dispute about the material facts—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Which there is.

Mr. Maclay: —no—secondly, that there was evidence that the board of management had failed to follow the procedure for dealing with appeals laid down by my Deparment or, thirdly, that the board's conclusion was so far removed from what a fair-minded person would think reasonable in the circumstances that it could not possibly be allowed to stand without review.
Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, there was no dispute about the facts—they have never been argued about—and I have satisfied myself that the board of management had complied with the procedure for dealing with appeals. This left only the third possible justification for an inquiry. The decision in this particular case was obviously a matter of judgment, and in matters of judgment there is room for genuine differences of opinion. Different people may give different weights to the various considerations bearing on the decision.
Failure to deal promptly with a casualty is a serious matter, as the hon. Gentleman will agree, and the board, after fully considering the circumstances, decided that dismissal was justified. While this is a severe form of disciplinary action, the decision is essentially one for the board itself, and I repeat that I should feel justified in intervening in such a decision only if it were so far removed from what a fair-minded person would think reasonable in the circumstances that it could not possibly be allowed to stand without review. It did not, and still does not, seem to me that the decision in this case is in that category, and accordingly I do not consider that any action on my part would be appropriate.
I have, of course, dealt with this case in the context of the existing disciplinary procedure which the board of management carried out. This procedure has been in existence in its present form for eight years, and no serious criticism of it had previously been made to me. I have already told the representatives of the Joint Consultants Committee, which represents the hospital doctors, that I should be glad to consider with them any suggestions they might have for the improvement of the procedure. I should, of course, have to consult the other representatives of the staff organisations as well, since this procedure does not apply


only to hospital doctors but to all grades of hospital staff.
I should also make it clear that in considering my decision on this case I have been concerned only with the action which I myself might or might not take under the powers available to me, and the ordinary avenues of redress through the courts are unaffected by anything that I have said.
One point on which the hon. Member touched was in relation to Dr. Palmer's registration. I understand that, despite his dismissal, Dr. Palmer was given a certificate by the Inverness Board of Management to the effect that his services had been approved as satisfactory by the consultant under whom he was working up to the date of his dismissal. That might seem to be in conflict with certain things that happened—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: It certainly does.

Mr. Maclay: —but I am informed that, because of this, the four and a half months that he spent at Raigmore will count towards the period of one year's house officer service required for full registration. My point is that the granting of a certificate to a provisionally registered doctor is, I am advised, related to his chief's assessment of his clinical work, and need not be affected by an incident of this kind—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Oh.

Mr. Maclay: I am advised that that is the procedure, and we are entering on very dangerous ground if we question that procedure.
I am grateful, I say it frankly, to the hon. Member for bringing this case up, because I think that there is still some

doubt about the whole position, and it seems to me to be essential that the whole facts should be laid before the House. I have no doubt that in the circumstances I could not, consistent with my duties to the whole hospital service in Scotland, have ordered a public inquiry, because I do not see what could possibly have come out of it. The facts were not disagreed at any stage in the discussions. We are up against this very difficult problem of judgment, and I do not see how we can run this hospital service in Scotland if the Secretary of State is to interfere with the detailed decisions of people who are responsible for the daily running of the hospitals unless he is convinced that their decision is so outrageous that he must intervene. I can only say that I have not been convinced that that is the position in this case.
I hope that the hon. Member will feel that in having ventilated the problem he has served a useful purpose. If there is doubt about the system of appeals which has been working up to now, we will examine it again to see if there is any better way of making people feel happier about it, but I do not believe that, if there had been a different method of appeals, there would have been any different decision in this case.
I hope the hon. Member will feel that, in the time at my disposal, I have dealt with the matter adequately, and that it should now rest.

Dr. Mabon: Oh, no. Most unsatisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.